The first bit of feedback came right away from Assignment 1, a good point was made about adding a criterion regarding “Professionalism” or “Fit with audience” to my grading rubric. I saw this as quite obvious and was surprised I never thought of it myself. I have added a “Professionalism” criterion to my version of the “Group Awesome Rubric.”
Wow! I just saw the inline comments you made to my proposal document. I wonder how many comments I have missed throughout my time in MET, I had no idea Canvas offered this functionality.
In regards to your comment:
“We should probably chat about ‘style’. That is, how you’ll craft each entry to stand as a professional resource, while also connecting to your own work. I think figuring out ‘how to present your own voice’ here will be important.”
It is too late to chat about style for my final submission but I do intend to continue building this resource and building an ePortfolio for CMALT certification. If you have time I would appreciate any suggestions and guidance you have to offer.
The feedback from Assignment 2 was pretty much what I expected as I had not spent too much time on content. At this point there was still much to do, the feedback helped me close most of the major gaps. While working on content and fixing up the overall look and feel of my site we were slammed with a pandemic, I had to make the difficult decision to abandon my original design ideas. You can check out where I was going with the original theme at: https://edtechsyllabus.trubox.ca/ only the homepage has the new color theme the others are still the same but it gives a sense of where I was going with it. Cloning the site and changing to a super plain theme allowed me to focus on adjusting the content based on the feedback from Assignment 2.
The feedback from Assignment 3 was more positive and reassured me that the gaps from Assignment 2 had been filled. However, there was still some work to be done. It was noted that I do not inform the reader what courses the artifacts on the Course Calendar page come from or what the course goal was for the artifact. I really didn’t want to put course numbers in my ePortfolio as they would be meaningless to my intended audience. After reading the feedback I thought fair enough, this is an ePortfolio based on my experiences and takeaways from my time in the MET program and my peers in the program want to know more about my artifacts. I think I came up with a nice compromise, I added a commentary about each artifact on the MET Course Descriptions page. I received some really nice feedback on my artifacts as well.
“Your artifacts were multimedia samples of MET projects, not just a boring collection of papers! I hadn’t heard of H5P before. Very timely for me right now (I am in 524 and trying to finish designing a unit in Canvas).”
I appreciated the compliment!
Another piece of information my peers asked for was my goals for entering the MET program, I hadn’t even thought to add these and was flattered that they were interested to know why I applied to the program. I was happy to add the section About the Masters of Educational Technology (MET) Program to my home page!
The feedback from Assignment 4 was positive. I am grateful for that as
I was not looking forward to recreating my video tour! That being said, it was noted my name was not on my ePortfolio – good catch! I do have the text ePortfolio of Jamie Drozda as the tagline for the site but the theme is so stripped down that it doesn’t display and I didn’t catch that! I added my name as the caption for my picture in the About me section of the home page.