I received helpful feedback both on my initial project proposal as well as my storyboard that I should be thoughtful of the scope of my project becoming too large. Receiving this feedback twice helped me to adjust my content approach to covering depth on a couple of topics rather than trying to cover such a wide breadth.

Additionally, I was encouraged to consider if a fully realized simulation (and all the programming and work associated with it) would be any more effective than a smaller-scoped course that is still interactive but less time-intensive. This helped me to revise my storyboard to focus more on interactive practice activities embedded in the module rather than a “fun” simulation that learners and stakeholders may not feel is worth the development time and may not connect as well to the learning outcomes.

Specifically, rather than having learners click through a virtual campus game simulating what a week in the life of a student, I realized learners would more effectively learn time-blocking by changing the interface and activity to building a time-blocked schedule in the module. I could still include narrative elements that help students imagine demands on their time, but the key element needed to be for them to learn and apply the skill of time-blocking.

One other element of feedback I hadn’t considered is how I write my learning outcomes, and who I am writing them for. Coming from a background of being an administrator in higher education, I am used to writing learning outcomes for other professionals/educators. My peer reviewers gave me feedback that while my learning outcomes were thorough, they may be too wordy and not laser-focused on helping any reader understand what the end goal of my module was.

I took another pass at my learning outcomes and wrote them in such a way that I could use them verbatim within my module for learners to understand what they will learn, while also being detailed enough that stakeholders could see the value and purpose of my module.