Learning Pod: #6

Peers’ Names: Julia Hoang, Chloe Zacharias, Kevin Song, Mumen Ismail, Amrinder Singh, Richard Gao

Interactive Learning Resource Topic: Chat GPT for Research/ https://learngpt.notion.site/ChatGPT-for-Research-deb54a630e994b14a8a18c9a6465963e

Identify components of the Interactive Learning Resource that might be missing (e.g., appropriate outcomes, alignment, interactivity, inclusivity, technology use and rationale, presentation, grammar, spelling, citations, etc.).

Inclusivity: In terms of inclusiveness, I did not see special help for different student groups, such as the function of enlarging fonts. Some modules do not provide video material for visually impaired students. Citations: On the web page, they mentioned some expertise. It seems to me that in-text citations are not included in the whole learning resources. Grammar: In module 5, perhaps you might consider the questions in the knowledge check have some grammar mistakes, such as “What steps must you take…”.

Provide a summary of The Interactive Learning Resource’s strengths and weaknesses. Draw out specific examples from your peers’ work to justify your feedback.

The group did a great job of consistency and use of technology. First, each module used two headings, Knowledge Checks, and Resources. Students could test their understanding of the knowledge after reading each chapter. In addition, they listed all uploaded materials and videos under the resources. Also, they used technologies such as Notion to produce the website and added Youtube videos and self-practice. It was worth mentioning that they added a final exam at the end of the website and gave detailed instructions on the scoring rules, which could reflect their intentions for the assessment goals. However, Grammar should still be checked, and learning sites should be more inclusive so that different types of students could participate in interactive learning.

Provide general, specific, and practical recommendations to your peers on improving their Interactive Learning Resources.

Overall, this is a relatively successful interactive learning resource, which is excellent in module distribution, application introduction, and self-examination. However, I recommend adding in-text citations where some expertise is mentioned so that readers can more easily find the source of expertise.