Critical Feedback

Assessor Feedback

The Deakin Assessor provided valuable recommendations for refining the unit plan.

While the inquiry-based approach was appreciated, improvements were suggested in differentiation and scaffolding to better support a diverse range of student needs.

The assessor highlighted the need for more varied options for students, especially in the reflective essay component.

They suggested offering alternatives such as oral presentations to challenge more capable students and accommodate those less inclined or able to write (Deakin Assessor, 2024).

Additionally, the assessor recommended enhancing the unit’s connection to real-world contexts and community activities, a sentiment also expressed in the peer feedback. For instance, linking the program to a purposeful community activity, such as performing for a local primary school, could make the learning experience more authentic and relevant (Deakin Assessor, 2024). Cultural diversity was also emphasised, with the recommendation to ensure the program is inclusive and reflective of various cultural backgrounds and explicitly demonstrated in the unit plan. This inclusivity helps create an environment where all students feel represented and valued (Churchill et al., 2021, 152-154).

Developing the unit plan to better cater for different “learning intelligences” as described by Churchill (2021, 228-229) is crucial for addressing varied learning styles and abilities, ensuring that all students can meet learning objectives. Integrating real-world applications into the curriculum enhances relevance and engagement, helping students see the practical value of their learning and assisting the educator in engaging students authentically (Pendergast & Bahr, 2005, 221). Furthermore, incorporating cultural diversity is essential for fostering an inclusive learning environment (Churchill, 2021, 142-143).

A.I Feedback- ChatGPT

The inclusion of A.I feedback is relevant to modern education as it is becoming more prevalent in everyday life particularly in information industries.  A.I. feedback offers immediate, valuable, globalised and consolidated critique. As potentially useful as this is it is important to presume error when interpreting the A.I results. For context, the A.I was given the prompt “I would like you to critique a (sic) applied learning learning plan.

Here is the learning plan:” and the rationale and learning plan were submitted to the A.I with no other information.

The A.I. feedback aligns with peer and assessor feedback by emphasising clear learning goals, real-world applications, and differentiation. It reinforces the need for specific objectives and connecting lessons to real-life contexts, similar to previous feedback. The A.I. also suggested adding structured feedback mechanisms and clearer curriculum connections, which were not covered by the peer although the assessor did enquire as to how assessment information will be tracked which relates to “structured feedback”. Specific goals and real-world relevance enhance engagement and clarity and differentiation and structured feedback improve learning outcomes both as previously mentioned. Although the critical analysis was apt, A.I. feedback should be assessed and verified against expert opinions due to potential inaccuracies in educational context which in this case was provided by the assessor and peer. 

The feedback from the Deakin Assessor, student peer, and A.I. program collectively highlights key areas for enhancing the unit plan, including differentiation, varied assessment methods, and real-world connections. While the assessor and peer emphasised practical improvements and inclusivity, the A.I. feedback supported these insights but should be used cautiously. The following section will address these recommendations to refine and strengthen the program.