Photo via Tyrone Burke on Carleton Newsroom

How will your interactive learning resource specifically ensure that the needs of all learners can be met?

Our group designed our interactive learning resource, Phishing and How to Protect Yourself, with inclusivity in mind to ensure that the needs of all learners are met. We recognized that learners have diverse needs, learning styles, and digital literacy levels and structured our activities and assessments accordingly.

In the “Activities and Assessment” part of our learning resource, we designed four learning activities with active learning strategies in mind. For example, “Phish or Legit?” is a timed activity that asks for learners to drag and drop real and simulated phishing emails into “Phish” or “Legit” categories. This activity mimics real inbox scanning and provides experiential learning for both visual and kinesthetic learners. Moreover, the “Credibility Detective” activity supports analytical thinkers by guiding them through a checklist they must then use to evaluate different sources in order to determine their credibility.

We also prioritized differentiated instruction when creating our learning resource. The Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning describes differentiated instruction as “[involving] teaching in a way that meets the different needs and interests of students using varied course content, activities, and assessments.” Our activities are scaffolded and begin with simpler tasks, like identifying red flags, before moving on to more complex tasks like analyzing psychological manipulation tactics and verifying suspicious content. In doing so, we allow learners to build confidence at their own pace before tackling the harder activities. Additionally, the “Tactic Decoder” activity allows learners to work in groups, which may benefit those who struggle with individual tasks or those who learn better with group discussions.

To ensure equity and digital accessibility throughout our learning resource, we incorporated real-life examples that could easily happen to anyone, such as malicious emails being sent to your inbox. Additionally, we tried to use plain language to explain concepts in layman’s terms. In doing so, we reduced the amount of technical jargon used so our learning resource can be easily understood by people of varying educational and technical backgrounds. We also addressed common misconceptions in the beginning (e.g. “phishing only happens through email”) to challenge assumptions and broaden our learners’ awareness.

Finally, our assessment plan uses a mix of formats (MCQ, T/F, scenario-based, and matching) to accommodate different strengths. Furthermore, we developed our scoring system to offer constructive feedback to learners and emphasize clear performance thresholds. By offering these performance thresholds, it encourages learners to continue their progress and identify areas of strength while also recognizing where further review or practice is needed. Our approach supports a growth mindset and empowers learners to view assessment as an opportunity for improvement rather than a final judgement of their digital literacy skills.

Works Cited

Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning. “Differentiated Instruction.” Stanford University, (n.d.), https://ctl.stanford.edu/differentiated-instruction.