Video tour and final course reflection

Okay, so my video is a bit longer than 5 minutes, but I swear there’s a reason! My video tour is presented as a mock news segment with Artie Smarts, an animated robot newscaster. I went with this format to keep things conversational and fun while still walking through the project in detail, drawing on Mayer’s (2009) personalization principle to show that professional learning can be engaging as well as practical. The playful opening, a few jokes, and the closing segment were all part of setting that tone and holding attention — though they do push the video slightly past the suggested runtime. I was having a lot of fun making it (using a combination of Adobe Express, Apple Clips, and CapCut), and I hope that comes through when you watch.

Sometimes you plan something and follow your itinerary to the letter; other times, despite your best intentions, another path calls to you and you end up going in a completely different direction. Such was the case with my learning throughout ETEC 524. In hindsight, it’s probably not surprising that my main work ended up focusing on AI and educators; it is a topic I’ve been almost obsessively engaged with for the past two years. But this was not where I initially set out to go in May.

My original goal was to outline and begin developing a hybrid online/classroom course for Grade 11/12 students, centred on skill development and mastery in an area of their choice. I’ve long wanted to create space for students who are not drawn to more traditional academic programming to pursue a deep dive into something meaningful to them. However, as the course unfolded, I shifted toward building a professional development module for educators in my school division. This shift came partly from recognizing the immediate usefulness of such a resource, and partly from seeing an opportunity to help teachers design more accessible, less cluttered Edsby environments for their students.

When I compared my initial and final projects, I noticed that both aimed at the same underlying challenge: addressing crucial shortcomings in current pedagogical models. The difference was that the PD module would allow me to act on these ideas sooner and in a context where I could model thoughtful technology use for colleagues as well as students. That reframing not only changed the direction of my final assignment, but also reframed how I now think about my role as a teacher-librarian — not just supporting student learning directly, but shaping the digital spaces and professional practices that make deeper learning possible.

I suppose we always live in ‘interesting times’, but the phrase seems particularly apropos of our current moment. Large Language Model tools, economic models that incentivize the capture of our attention and data, and political dialogue are currently shaking the foundation of what it means to learn, and therefore what it means to teach. I leave this course with many great resources to strengthen my toolbox, but also quite a few existential questions about where we move on from here.

In terms of resources, several were especially important in shaping my thinking throughout the course. I’m always one for an acronym, and Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS model and its clear breakdown of considerations for technology selection was a very helpful frame. I still struggle with it in some ways, but only because I see that it may lead organizations to prioritize immediate cost over sustainability. Of course, this is a systemic issue. Planned obsolescence, increasing energy demands, and security and privacy issues create a scenario where tech requires frequent updating and replacement, while the majority of companies that have significant interest in developing hardware and software run on a model of infinite profit and growth. This results in devices where parts can’t be swapped out, or where our data is traded like a commodity. Fighting against this means using open source or older technologies that require more in-house tech support, and often significantly less ease of use. I can’t help but worry that we’re paying out of our future for ease of use today.

Outcome development and assessment was another area of growth for me. Given my role in the public school system, I am much more familiar with assessing by outcomes that have been provided to me, rather than creating those outcomes myself. My part one of my second assignment showed my weakness in that area. Assessing for PD learning rather than an academic course was something that I hadn’t really thought about. In most of my school-based PD learning experience, assessment seems to boil down to your name being on the attendance sheet, or (for online modules), a series of automatically graded multiple choice and true/false questions that staff often did as a group. But we know that simply being in the room isn’t learning something, and that tests generally only measure lower-order skills (Mazur, 2013). As such, Mazur’s suggestions to improve assessment by mimicking real life, focusing on feedback not ranking, and assessing skills rather than content were especially useful, and I tried to mindfully incorporate them into the activities I planned in my unit. His fourth point about resolving the coach/judge conflict is tricky for online learning especially, as instructors are often spread more thinly. For older users, peer and self-assessment can be a useful workaround.

Media literacy (particularly around images, and also video)has also emerged for me as an essential skill for both students and educators. Yousman’s (2016) discussion of speed versus depth, appearances versus analysis, and the emotional pull of images resonates strongly with my concerns about online-only learning. In a digital environment where learners are often inundated with visuals, the skill to pause, question, and analyze becomes a prerequisite for critical engagement.

Ultimately, this course has left me feeling more positive about the state of in-person teaching, and with significant question marks about the long-term sustainability of online-only-asynchronous education — especially given generative AI’s rise. Many edtech tools, whether devices, applications, or Learning Management Systems, allow for holistic application of UDL principles into a blended learning environment; a fully inclusive environment that allows for multiple means of engagement, representation, and action & expression (Bourlova, 2025). But assessing learning without a real connection to the learner in an online-only environment becomes increasingly challenging in a world where almost anything can be made for you in seconds. When we are digitally siloed, it becomes far too easy to “other” the entire world. Bringing learning back to community, even in a hybrid format, becomes a moral as well as a pedagogical imperative.

This is why I leave this course particularly invigorated to see how learning technologies can be applied to hybrid environments, especially in the realm of professional development. When I plan professional development in schools, I often hear how great it is to have bespoke learning that is relevant, personalized, and even a bit fun when topics are difficult. I know, though, that these sessions are limited in their universal design, as some individuals need more time to process, different modalities, or repeated exposure to key ideas. What if this kind of work can be done at my divisional level to plan PD that reaches more of us, on locally relevant topics, and what if that trickles into our classrooms? One next step I see is reaching out to upper administration to share my vision of hybrid-learning PD using our Edsby system. I don’t know of anyone within my division with this specific background and training, and I wonder if I might be able to shape a role for myself in this space. McErlean’s (2018) work on interactive narratives also strikes me as especially relevant here — using immersion to engage participants while still controlling the delivery of key content. I think hybrid learning could benefit greatly from this balance.

I’m also especially interested in making Open Educational Resources that align with UDL standards. In creating accessible and Creative Commons-licensed resources, I can work toward reducing the paywall creep that has marked the shift from the open optimism of the Web 2.0 era to today’s increasingly commercialized edtech landscape. This work would not only address accessibility and equity concerns but also provide sustainable, adaptable materials that could serve both students and educators long after their initial creation. In my job as a teacher-librarian, I can promote the heck out of these resources to teachers; we don’t have to be in the pocket of big textbook anymore.

This course has reinforced for me that educational technology is at its best when it strengthens human connection, promotes equity, and cultivates critical engagement; not when it simply delivers content faster or more efficiently. The challenge, especially in “interesting times,” is to hold on to those values in the face of rapid change, commercialization, and the seductive ease of automation. My next steps (from advocating for hybrid, UDL-informed professional development to creating accessible OERs) are grounded in a belief that technology should expand possibilities for both teachers and learners, without locking us into closed systems or shallow engagement. The tools will keep changing, but the responsibility to use them thoughtfully remains the same.

References

Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. In Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media

Bourlova, T. (2025). Week 8: Creating Content. [Lecture Notes] UBC Canvas. https://canvas.ubc.ca

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2022). Sustainable design : HCI, usability and environmental concerns. Springer.

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

McErlean, K. (2018). Interactive narrative. In Interactive narratives and transmedia storytelling: Creating immersive stories across new media platforms (pp. 120-151). New York: Routledge.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.

Yousman, B. (2016). The text and the image: Media literacy, pedagogy, and generational divides. In J. Frechette & R. Williams (Eds.), Media education for a digital generation (pp. 157-170).

AI Essentials for Educators; one step closer to reality

I love a good digital story—that’s the teacher‑librarian in me. So when Part II called for one, I went big. I split the module into three chunks: a gentle, non‑academic primer on LLM limitations; Shannon Vallor’s short talk on AI as a mirror; a practical on‑ramp via a choose‑your‑own‑adventure (CYOA) story; and then some hands on AI tool interaction. My audience (Senior Years teachers new to gen‑AI) was not going to read Crawford’s Atlas of AI or Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, so I let Clippee do the ranting instead.

I actually started in Twine, but Edsby doesn’t play nicely with Twine embeds. Google Sites would have worked, but I wanted to model inside the LMS they already use. So I pivoted to Canva. That constraint forced me to prune eight branches down to four core scenarios. I think this was ultimately a blessing, because it sharpened the key myths I needed teachers to bump into. Guided by Bruner’s claim that “practice in discovering for oneself” makes knowledge more usable in problem solving (Bruner, 1961), the branching story lets teachers feel the pitfalls before I name them. In Bruner’s “hypothetical mode,” learners aren’t “bench‑bound listeners” but co‑constructors; every click in the story and every prompt revision in the lab puts them in that role.

Multimodality mattered too. The New London Group’s push for multiliteracies (1996) and UDL principles nudged me to balance text, images, and short audio clips. I recorded voices in CapCut (yes, shameless self‑promotion—I want invites to co‑teach CYOA projects). Vallor’s mirror metaphor (2024) shaped Clippee’s tone: he “magnifies” what the AI quietly distorted, echoing Crawford’s critique of data extraction and Noble’s warnings about encoded bias. But in a much more accessible way.

Within the walls of my module, H5P’s paywall (thanks, D2L) pushed me to CurrikiStudio for the formative checks. That choice wasn’t just budget—Curriki is something teachers can actually replicate in their own Edsby pages tomorrow, without approvals or fees. Peer interaction is Edsby’s Achilles’ heel, so I farmed discussion to Padlet. It’s clunky to add another tool, but the final course task also lives on Padlet, so repeated exposure helps. I even seeded sample posts so no one stares at a blank board.

Overall, this module blends hands‑on pragmatism with just enough theory for what my audience needs: useful, not heavy.

References

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.
Crawford, K. (2020). Atlas of AI. Yale University Press.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. NYU Press.
Vallor, S. (2024). AI is a mirror of humanity [Video]. Institute of Art and Ideas.

without the features you want; a struggle story

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