Peer review for Pod 2’s “Basic Python for Beginners” Interactive learning resource.
I believe this team has covered the topics nicely in an organized and informative manner. The choice of using google Slides helps to make it easy to maneuver it thoroughly and see all the content and links. It would be lovely to see some more colors or images.
Overview: (slides 5-9)
The overview provides a clear description of the topic of the material presented. I really liked that it was very direct in indicating who it was for, the purpose, which type of learning, and so forth.
I agree that direct instructions (DI) is an accurate representation of this material as it provides specific examples/work for learners to follow and practice.
Personally, I feel as if behaviorism could also be a good fit, as it focuses on responses to specific stimuli this could be interpreted as one writes and runs the code(Ertmer & Newby, 2018).
Moreover, I thought it was very helpful to have the description and rationale split up for the learning theory, and design sections.
Perhaps you might consider adding a small description of the learning outcomes, how will they be of use to the learner, or why knowing this will be helpful.
Activities: (slides 10-25)
It seems to me that the first activity is watching and completing a true/false quiz. I believe if there were components of the learner having to explain their learning it would be of many benefits to test and see what was not only retained but understood. I really liked the Leet code programming problems. I think it is crucial for a student to practice inputting code to understand the process.
Assessment: (slides 23,25,26-29)
For the quiz which is a majority of the grade, I like that the learner has the whole day to complete it. I believe the final assessment activity is great. However, it would be useful to have an explanation section for the assessments as it would provide the learner with the opportunity to express their thought and understanding.
Additionally, I believe this course would benefit from a feedback component, this would allow for additional modifications in the future.
Design for Inclusion, technology: (slides 30-32)
I agree that this course is well designed for a working single parent as it is self-paced, and all the information can be provided virtually. However, I believe this course will not necessarily be as inclusive for those who do not have access to a computer. Coding unfortunately has to be run to check for errors. One could however practice by written coding activities with pen and paper. I believe it would be useful to further look into how this course could support those without a computer.
Overall I believe this is a great tool with a good selection of components that allowed students to explore the basics of python without getting too overwhelmed. I believe it will very helpful.
Best
Jeet Bains
Reference:
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. (2018) Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design persepctive. In R. E. West, Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: The Past, Present, and Future of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/behaviorism_cognitivism_constructivism
Leave a Reply