EDUC 7308
Designing Learning Environments in a Social and Digital World · 4 instructors on record · 7 sections
That is the class itself, averaged across everyone who taught it. Who taught it, and how each of them scored, is the board below — that is what a student picking a section is actually choosing between.
Boston College's own “intellectually challenging” question for this class only — students answer it positively about courses that stretched them, so it measures intellectual challenge and NOT grading, workload or quality. Almost every BC class scores high on it, which is why it is shown as a rank rather than a score.
Boston College reports workload for this class only as one of five bands, not as a number of hours, and it does not publish what the bands mean — so this site will not translate it into hours. Higher means more work, which is not the same as worse.
In today's society, what counts as knowledge and expertise has changed considering the global shifts in interconnectivity, social interactions, and technology. Previous models of learning focused on knowledge as a collection of facts within curriculum and learning environments helping individuals obtain those facts. However, today technology can enable all individuals to quickly obtain facts. Instead, expertise requires deep knowledge in which ideas are applied across multiple contexts in particular contexts with people and tools. These shifts in knowledge as well as technological advances have significant implications for how we design curriculum and other learning environments. In this course, we will examine different learning environments as well as various aspects within those environments. For example, we will examine curriculum to evaluate the scaffolds to support student learning, analyze digital learning environments for professional development to support teacher learning and critique video of classroom discourse to examine student interactions and community development. In this course, we will consider the environment both as conceptualized by its designers (the design) and as it is experienced by participants as learning interactions unfold in particular settings (the enactment) to evaluate the effectiveness of those learning environments.
Scores are real averages. The order also accounts for how many records back each one — the count is under every score — so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. 1 of the 4 rows carry a mark saying so.
| Rank | Instructor | Overall | Workload | Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alexander CorbittTeacher Education and Currriculum and Instruction | 953 records | 78th | 53rd |
| 2 | Andrew CroftTeacher Education and Currriculum and Instruction Provisional | 841 record | — | 18th |
| 3 | Ahrum JeonEducation Provisional fewer records | 781 record | 78th | 5th |
| 4 | Jieun LeeTeacher Education and Currriculum and Instruction Provisional | 812 records | 78th | 21st |
How this board is orderedPositions account for how many records stand behind each number, so one perfect review does not outrank a semester of them. Every score shown is the real average — only the ordering is adjusted. The comparison here is the class itself: a thin record is read against how this class was rated overall, not against the university.
Every instructor with an evaluation record for this class is on this board — it is not a top ten, and nothing is hidden behind a “show more”. Overall is the instructor's blended score for THIS class only, and its one contributing source is Boston College's evaluations for the sections in the row's record count — nothing on this board is an average across the other things they teach. Workload and Challenge are RANKS against every class we hold, not scores: BC's questions all sit near the top of the 1-5 scale, so a raw number would put almost every row in the high eighties and tell you nothing. Challenge is BC's “intellectually challenging” item, which students answer positively about courses that stretched them — it is not a measure of difficulty or grading. Neither column is ever marked better or worse. 3 of 4 rows are marked provisional: fewer than 3 records stand behind the number. That is thin evidence, not a bad instructor — the record count is in every row.
The line
All 13 items · means across 7 recordsBar length is the rank against every comparable record we hold, not the raw score: BC's questions all have a median around 4.5, so a raw-scale bar would be nearly full on every row and would tell you nothing. Every bar is one ink colour — nothing here is graded green or red. The hatched bars are not ratings at all: a higher number on either describes a different course, not a better one.
Game log
7 sections · newest first| Instructor | Term | Sec | Instr | Course | Work |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Croft | Summer 2025 | 01 | 84 | 79 | — |
| Jieun Lee | Fall 2023 | 01 | 91 | 84 | — |
| Alexander Corbitt | Fall 2022 | 01 | 94 | 93 | 60 |
| Jieun Lee | Fall 2022 | 02 | 70 | 75 | 60 |
| Alexander Corbitt | Summer 2022 | 01 | 100 | 88 | 60 |
| Alexander Corbitt | Fall 2021 | 01 | 91 | 88 | — |
| Ahrum Jeon | Fall 2021 | 03 | 78 | 72 | 60 |
How to read this boardInstructors are ranked on their record in this class only, never on their average across everything they teach. Scores are out of 100 — Boston College's 1–5 agreement scale, ×20, the way these numbers were printed for years. Workload is BC's own five-band figure, not a number of hours, and is shown as a rank. A dash means the question was not reported, and is never a zero.