Reflection 反思

Reflecting on this entire process, my journey with GenAI and the instructional design project has been profoundly transformative, shifting my perspective from seeing technology as a mere tool to understanding it as a complex collaborative partner. My approach to designing prompts evolved from seeking straightforward answers to engaging in a dynamic, critical dialogue. Initially, I might ask a broad question like how to transform text-heavy slides, only to receive generic advice. The real breakthrough came when I learned to iterate and refine to specify practical tools, demand theoretical justifications, and courageously point out discrepancies with my course readings. This iterative negotiation, especially when I challenged GenAI for omitting Rogers' innovation model, was exhilarating. It taught me that my role wasn't to be a passive recipient but an active interrogator, using my growing knowledge to steer the interaction toward deeper synthesis. The most rewarding moments came from prompts that forced connections, like asking AI to synthesize educational data mining, learning analytics, and Social Network Analysis into one coherent system. This didn’t just recap content; it generated a new, holistic understanding I hadn’t possessed before, proving the value of synthesis as the highest-order prompt strategy. The most rewarding moments came from prompts that forced connections, like asking AI to synthesize educational data mining, learning analytics, and Social Network Analysis into one coherent system. This didn’t just recap content; it generated a new, holistic understanding I hadn’t possessed before, proving the value of synthesis as the highest-order prompt strategy.

回顧整個過程，我與生成式人工智慧以及教學設計專案的旅程深具變革性，將我的觀點從將科技視為單純工具，轉變為理解它是一個複雜且協作的夥伴。我設計提示的方式也從尋求直接答案，演變為進行動態且批判性的對話。起初，我可能會提出像如何改造文字繁多的簡報這樣的廣泛問題，結果只得到一般性的建議。真正的突破發生在我學會迭代與精煉時——指定實用工具、要求理論依據，並勇於指出與課程閱讀材料的差異。這種迭代的協商過程，尤其是在我挑戰生成式人工智慧忽略羅傑斯創新模型時，令人振奮。它教會我，我的角色不是被動接受者，而是積極的質詢者，運用我日益增長的知識，引導互動走向更深層次的綜合。最有成就感的時刻來自那些迫使我進行聯結的提示，例如要求 AI 將教育資料挖掘、學習分析與社群網絡分析綜合成一個連貫的系統。這不僅僅是重述內容；它產生了一種我以前未曾擁有的全新整體理解，證明了綜合作為最高層次提示策略的價值。

This same spirit of iterative design and synthesis directly fueled our project. My role in initiating the idea and drafting the instructional design documents was driven by a desire to address the authentic, deteriorating issue I observed at CUHK which is the disconnect between faculty aspirations and their text-heavy, disengaging online practices. Moving from a generic solution to a niche, targeted intervention required us to meticulously align learning objectives with theoretical frameworks like Mayer’s Principles and the Community of Inquiry. The success I see lies in that specificity; we didn’t just suggest adding videos; we built a scaffolded implementation plan with modules that guide faculty from cognitive theory to practical creation of narrated animations and collaborative activities. It feels like a viable blueprint for change.

這種循環設計與綜合的精神直接推動了我們的專案。我在構思這個想法並起草教學設計文件的角色，源自於我希望解決我在香港中文大學觀察到的真實且「惡化」的問題：教師的期望與他們以文字為主、缺乏吸引力的線上教學實踐之間的脫節。從通用解決方案轉向利基、針對性的介入，需要我們仔細地將學習目標與像 Mayer 原則及探究社群（Community of Inquiry）等理論框架對齊。我看到的成功就在於這種具體性——我們不只是建議「增加影片」；我們構建了一個分層的實施計畫，模組引導教師從認知理論到實際創作旁白動畫與協作活動。這感覺像是一個可行的變革藍圖。

Of course, the path had its challenges. Collaborating across a 12-hour time zone with my partner, Katie, was a logistical hurdle that demanded flexibility and patience from both sides. More intellectually challenging was merging our disparate disciplinary backgrounds—linguistics and military education. Our initial conversations were a critical crucible. We had to actively translate our perspectives, share literature, and validate that the core problem transcended our fields. This diversity, once navigated, became our greatest strength, ensuring our proposal was robust and not limited to a single academic silo. It was a practical lesson in interdisciplinary collaboration.

當然，這條道路並非沒有挑戰。與我的合作夥伴凱蒂跨越12小時時差的合作，是一個後勤上的難題，雙方都需要靈活性和耐心。更具智力挑戰的是融合我們截然不同的學科背景——語言學和軍事教育。我們最初的討論是一個關鍵的熔爐。我們必須積極地翻譯彼此的觀點、分享文獻，並確認核心問題超越了我們各自的領域。這種多樣性，一旦克服，就成為我們最大的優勢，確保我們的提案是穩健的，而不僅限於單一學術領域。這是一個實際的跨學科合作的課程。

If given another chance, I would introduce a comparative dimension, pitching our framework against the context of a U.S. university. Examining how cultural diversity, organizational culture, and faculty profiles might alter the implementation strategies would add incredible depth and rigor, turning our project into a truly comparative study in instructional design.

如果有另一個機會，我會加入比較的層面，將我們的框架與美國大學的情境對照。探討文化多樣性、組織文化以及教職員結構如何影響實施策略，將為研究增添極大的深度與嚴謹性，使我們的專案真正成為教學設計方面的比較研究。

The logical next step for me is continuity, to pitch this proposal and pilot the study at CUHK. I envision starting with instructors and tutors as the first participant group—a manageable pilot that could provide invaluable feedback before a wider faculty rollout. This entire experience, from the frustrating jargon-heavy dead ends with AI to the breakthrough of a well-synthesized concept, has fundamentally reshaped my approach. I no longer view GenAI as an oracle but as a provocateur that mirrors and amplifies my own critical thinking. The project, in turn, is no longer just an academic exercise; it feels like a actionable contribution, born from genuine observation and refined through a process of relentless inquiry and collaborative synthesis.

對我來說，下一個合乎邏輯的步驟是持續推進：向中文大學提出這個計劃並試行研究。我設想從講師和導師作為第一批參與者開始——這是一個可控的試點，可以在更大範圍的教師推廣前提供寶貴的反饋。整個經歷，從與人工智慧的令人沮喪「術語過多」的死胡同，到突破性地形成一個精心整合的概念，已經從根本上改變了我的方法。我不再將生成式人工智慧視為神諭，而是將其看作一個挑釁者，反映並放大我自身的批判性思維。反過來，這個項目也不再僅僅是學術練習；它感覺像是一項可付諸行動的貢獻，源於真實的觀察，並通過不懈探究和協作整合過程加以提煉。