While what all you are saying in this video is mostly true you have missed some core details about the course you gave. The time estimation was not wrong with 2-3 hours per week in my experience more like 5-6 hours per week. Which might not seem so much but well it becomes way off when you think about the fact that the students have max 20 hours per week for a 7.5 credit course (in Sweden). Your second big mistake during the course was being way to ambiguous regarding requirements for the project and aslo way to optimistic about what could be created in such a short amount of time. I think the workload structure is giving some missinformation of how the course actually was. First six weeks there was no way to start working on the Artefact because unless you chose to do DftRW (Design for the Real World) as the approach. The reason you couldn't design during the first six weeks was that that time was spent on doing research about the problem and design which could be 3 entirely different ideas. I also think you got the max 2 people wrong. In my opinion if we were to deliver a better artefact, then I do believe that a group of 4 would have worked better for that. I would personally suggest that the project be started earlier at the latest middle of the second week and then have the same kind of revision schedule for the first 3 tasks. That would give a more sufficient time to create an artefact that is up to par with expectations as you eluded to on your twitter (a bit degrading towards the students considering your ambiguous requirements). I really think it is quite strange that you only talk about the successes and not your failures. That does not seem academically ethical, at least from what I have learned. As a last note I think most of what you have said in your video is true and very useful. Especially the use of Canvas to a high degree and using a mix of lecture/discussions where there was prerecorded lectures.
Thank you for writing this, as a an "insider" who took the course that we're talking about. Your comments will be extremely valuable for the audience (teachers). A short comment, for the benefit of the audience, as well as yours: It's true - the course and I have many shortcomings. But this is not an academic analysis of the entire course. This is about structure, and tools, tactics, and tips for teachers; while most shortcomings you list are content-specific. But I agree with you, I'd even say: one reason I excluded them is that I didn't have a lot of relevant proven wisdom to offer on those particular topics. The scope here is to focus on what works.
While what all you are saying in this video is mostly true you have missed some core details about the course you gave.
The time estimation was not wrong with 2-3 hours per week in my experience more like 5-6 hours per week. Which might not seem so much but well it becomes way off when you think about the fact that the students have max 20 hours per week for a 7.5 credit course (in Sweden).
Your second big mistake during the course was being way to ambiguous regarding requirements for the project and aslo way to optimistic about what could be created in such a short amount of time. I think the workload structure is giving some missinformation of how the course actually was. First six weeks there was no way to start working on the Artefact because unless you chose to do DftRW (Design for the Real World) as the approach. The reason you couldn't design during the first six weeks was that that time was spent on doing research about the problem and design which could be 3 entirely different ideas.
I also think you got the max 2 people wrong. In my opinion if we were to deliver a better artefact, then I do believe that a group of 4 would have worked better for that. I would personally suggest that the project be started earlier at the latest middle of the second week and then have the same kind of revision schedule for the first 3 tasks. That would give a more sufficient time to create an artefact that is up to par with expectations as you eluded to on your twitter (a bit degrading towards the students considering your ambiguous requirements).
I really think it is quite strange that you only talk about the successes and not your failures. That does not seem academically ethical, at least from what I have learned.
As a last note I think most of what you have said in your video is true and very useful. Especially the use of Canvas to a high degree and using a mix of lecture/discussions where there was prerecorded lectures.
Thank you for writing this, as a an "insider" who took the course that we're talking about. Your comments will be extremely valuable for the audience (teachers).
A short comment, for the benefit of the audience, as well as yours: It's true - the course and I have many shortcomings. But this is not an academic analysis of the entire course. This is about structure, and tools, tactics, and tips for teachers; while most shortcomings you list are content-specific. But I agree with you, I'd even say: one reason I excluded them is that I didn't have a lot of relevant proven wisdom to offer on those particular topics. The scope here is to focus on what works.
Agreed. Moreover, Franklin Credit Union scandal is still unresolved and Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself.