In retrospect…

Anastasia Semash
Nov 18, 2025
3 min read

In my MSMU course, Technology for Access, Assessment, Teaching, and Learning, I was asked to take an Agile-inspired retrospective look at my own learning. The prompt was: evaluate the first half of the course using the 4Ls method—what I Loved, Loathed, Learned, and Longed for.

Our assignments centered on combining technological tools with both online and offline teaching methods to better assess students’ needs and design more effective learning strategies. So, below is my personal 4Ls retrospective, focused specifically on the tools and tech-supported strategies I experimented with for assessment and course design.

Loved:

To my own surprise, I loved applying backward design, especially when building a self-paced online module. I used to be somewhat skeptical of the model—its structured, almost mechanical logic felt at odds with the intuitive, creative process I rely on in art education. But once I began mapping outcomes first, I realized how naturally backward design aligns with technology-supported learning.

Graphic syllabi, clickable pathways, and non-linear modules became so much easier to build when I started with the end goal rather than the beginning. Every platform—Canvas, Google Sites, Google Classroom—worked better within that framework.

Loathed: PearDeck as a “popular” tool"

What went wrong? Honestly, PearDeck and I did not get along. The tool is promoted everywhere as classroom-friendly and intuitive. My experience? Quite the opposite:

Constant authorization issues
An awkward interface
A surprising lack of user-centered design.

Of all the assessment tools I explored, PearDeck was the one that genuinely disrupted my workflow instead of supporting it. This frustration also highlighted something important about my own teaching strategies: if a tool creates a problem for me, my students will feel it twice as much. My takeaway: not all “ed-tech staples” are worth adopting—especially when cleaner, more reliable alternatives exist

Learned: Canva’s limits—and its abundance with AI.

I already liked and extensively used Canva for simple graphic design (especially on the first, brainstorming stage) and visual communication, but this course confirmed that Canva still isn’t built for true interactivity.

Yes, it offers clickable links, collaborative features, embedded content, and a handful of other limited tools. And yes, its AI features can feel almost miraculous. But when it comes to serious assessment or meaningful student interaction, Canva simply doesn’t hold up. It sometimes reminds me of those “cargo cult” memes—it pretends to work in ways it actually doesn’t.

However, the AI functions within Canva do drastically speed up drafting, formatting, and restructuring content. I’m still not sure whether that excites me or terrifies me—but either way, AI now plays a noticeable role in how I develop online lessons and assessment materials.

Longed For: Simplicity and fewer “bells and whistles”

What changes would I make?If there’s one theme that kept repeating throughout the course, it’s this: I longed for cleaner, simpler editing tools.

Between LMS platforms, design apps, assessment tools, and AI integrations, I often felt buried under layers of features, interfaces, and settings—when all I wanted was a clean workspace to build clear, structured learning experiences.

My students—adult learners balancing work, family, and creative goals—don’t need more digital flashiness. They need simple, intuitive pathways and tools that support their learning instead of overwhelming them.

This reflection reminded me to prioritize: