CMALT Resubmission: Responses to Peer Assessment Feedback
Candidate: Keith Heggart
Assessment outcome: Referral – Minor Revisions Required
Assessment date: 28 October 2026
Introduction
I would like to thank both assessors for their constructive and detailed feedback on my CMALT portfolio. I particularly appreciate their recognition of the breadth of my experience in learning technology and their recommendations for strengthening the reflective and evidential aspects of the submission.
On reviewing the feedback, I recognise that my original portfolio was, in places, more descriptive than critically reflective. Although it documented a range of professional experiences and achievements, it did not always sufficiently explain the decisions underpinning those activities, the challenges encountered, the contributions of colleagues or the ways in which these experiences informed my subsequent practice.
The revision has therefore focused on developing a more selective and critically reflective account of my practice, rather than simply adding further examples.
The following responses describe the proposed revisions to Core Areas 2–4, the specialist option and the CMALT core principles.
Responses to Assessor 1
Sections 1a and 1c describe technologies and their application but require greater reflection on decision-making and supporting learners and colleagues.
Thank you for this observation. I have prepared revisions to Sections 1a and 1c that place greater emphasis on the decision-making processes underpinning my use and deployment of learning technologies.
In Section 1a, I have expanded the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design example to include a direct comparison of Canvas, H5P and Genially, considering their respective pedagogical benefits, technical constraints and implications for learners. I have also developed the reflection on my use of Zoom and Echo360 during the pandemic, highlighting the different opportunities and limitations associated with synchronous and asynchronous learning.
In Section 1c, I have expanded my reflection on supporting academic staff during the UTS Canvas implementation. This now provides a more detailed account of the professional learning activities I facilitated, the pedagogical rationale underpinning the workshops, and the use of Canvas Student View to help colleagues critically examine their subjects from a learner’s perspective.
I have also made the distinction between providing technical instruction and supporting pedagogical change more explicit.
I recognise that these revisions must be supported by more direct documentary evidence, particularly of the deployment and professional learning activities.
The portfolio should make explicit how new technologies are learned and how technical knowledge is maintained.
I have revised Section 1b to give greater prominence to the processes through which I acquire, develop and maintain my technical expertise.
In addition to describing my experience using established learning technologies, the revised section discusses how I have pursued further professional learning in learning analytics, machine learning and data visualisation.
I have particularly emphasised the challenges of translating knowledge acquired through introductory professional development into authentic educational applications. This provides a more critical account of my professional learning and demonstrates my recognition that technical expertise requires ongoing experimentation, evaluation and development.
Comment: The portfolio should demonstrate learning from colleagues with different backgrounds and specialisms.
I have expanded Section 1c to foreground the collaborative dimensions of the UTS Canvas implementation, including my work alongside learning designers and technical specialists.
The revised reflection acknowledges that successful learning technology deployment requires complementary expertise in pedagogy, technology and institutional systems.
Strengthening the connection between pedagogical philosophy and learning technology decisions (Section 2a)
Thank you for identifying the need to make the relationship between my pedagogical philosophy and technology selection more explicit.
The revised Section 2a develops the Graduate Certificate in Learning Design example to explain how constructive alignment, flipped learning and authentic assessment informed specific learning technology decisions.
In particular, the revision explains the differentiated purposes of Canvas, interactive asynchronous resources and synchronous Zoom sessions. It also examines the adoption of digital portfolios and the use of authoring tools such as Articulate Rise to support authentic assessment.
I have expanded the critical reflection to consider the limitations of these approaches, including the challenges of ensuring engagement with preparatory learning materials and the distinction between technical competence and pedagogical effectiveness.
The section will be supported by curriculum and assessment documentation and examples of learning activities, enabling assessors to examine the relationship between the intended learning outcomes, selected technologies and actual assessment requirements.
Providing more direct evidence of engagement with legislation
I agree that the original section identified several relevant legal responsibilities but did not adequately demonstrate how these considerations were translated into professional practice.
The revised Section 3a has been refocused on the accessibility requirements associated with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and Disability Standards for Education 2005, using the design of the GCLD as the principal example.
The revised account explains how accessibility considerations informed decisions about multimedia resources, alternative formats and interactive learning materials. It also distinguishes between legal obligations and technical guidance, including WCAG 2.1.
I have strengthened the reflection on the challenges associated with using interactive digital resources while seeking to minimise barriers to participation.
The section also considers student data privacy within the NSW public university context.
Further supporting evidence will be incorporated from relevant learning materials, accessibility documentation and institutional guidance where available.
I recognise the need to avoid claiming complete legal compliance without appropriate supporting documentation. The revised account therefore focuses on demonstrating my engagement with the relevant responsibilities, the design decisions they informed and the limitations of my own expertise.
Providing more focused evidence and reflection on standards and policies (Section 3b)
Thank you for recommending a more focused example of engagement with standards and policies.
The revised Section 3b concentrates on my work aligning curriculum and assessment in the Master of Teaching (Secondary) with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.
The revision explains the rationale for standards mapping, how it supports curriculum coherence and why mapping documents should be used as instruments for critical curriculum review rather than simply records of compliance.
I have also included reflection on the distinction between demonstrating that a professional standard has been mapped and establishing that students have developed the associated capabilities.
The revised portfolio will include a relevant example of a mapping document, subject to appropriate permissions and removal of confidential information.
Demonstrating an ongoing commitment to new technologies
I recognise that the original portfolio demonstrated experience with a range of technologies without consistently explaining the processes through which I developed and maintained this expertise.
The revised Core Area 1 provides a more explicit account of my professional learning in learning analytics, machine learning and data visualisation, including independent experimentation and the challenges of applying technical knowledge in authentic educational contexts.
Section 2a also develops the relationship between continuing pedagogical learning and technology selection.
The revised Future Plans section identifies further professional development in artificial intelligence, learning analytics and digital equity.
Taken together, these changes are intended to demonstrate a sustained commitment to professional learning rather than simply familiarity with particular technologies.
Demonstrating empathy and willingness to learn from colleagues
Thank you for identifying that the contributions of colleagues were insufficiently acknowledged in the original portfolio.
The revised Section 4 provides a more explicit discussion of reciprocal professional learning, particularly through my work with academic staff, learning designers and technical specialists during the UTS Canvas implementation.
It considers the importance of understanding different professional perspectives, adapting communication to colleagues’ needs and creating opportunities for collaborative reflection.
I have also expanded the discussion of professional networks and mentorship to acknowledge what I have learned from others, rather than focusing exclusively on my own leadership and dissemination activities.
I intend to include a specific documented example of a colleague’s contribution influencing a design or implementation decision, as this would provide stronger evidence of the reciprocal nature of my professional learning.
Developing fewer examples in greater depth
I agree with the overall recommendation to provide fewer, more substantive examples.
The revised portfolio therefore places greater emphasis on selected experiences, particularly the GCLD, the Canvas implementation at UTS, standards-mapping activities and the development of inclusive learning design resources.
This enables the discussion to focus on the relationship between context, decisions, implementation, supporting evidence, critical reflection and subsequent professional development.
The Specialist Option has also been narrowed to a single area of expertise, allowing for a more coherent and detailed account.
Responses to Assessor 2
Section 1.1 needs a direct comparison of technologies, a clearer selection process, more evidence and deeper reflection.
Response
I agree that the original section described technologies selected for the GCLD without providing a sufficiently explicit comparison of the alternatives and their relative merits.
I have prepared a revised section incorporating a comparison of Canvas, H5P and Genially, focusing on pedagogical functionality, learner experience, accessibility and usability.
The revised discussion also considers why a combination of technologies was appropriate in this context, rather than assuming that a single platform could adequately support every learning activity.
I have strengthened the reflection on the compromises associated with technology selection, including the possibility that interactive learning materials may create unnecessary complexity or accessibility barriers.
The comparison is a retrospective articulation of the considerations underlying my selection. I will not present it as a formal report produced during the original project unless contemporaneous documentation can be located.
Section 1.2 could be strengthened by reflection on how technical skills are acquired and maintained.
Thank you for this recommendation. The revised Section 1b provides a more substantive account of my continuing technical professional development.
In particular, I have discussed the relationship between structured learning, independent experimentation and applying technical knowledge to educational problems.
I have also incorporated more explicit reflection on the challenges associated with developing expertise in learning analytics and data visualisation, recognising that completing technical training is only one part of developing professional competence.
This reflection more clearly demonstrates my commitment to maintaining technical currency and to critically evaluating the relevance of emerging technologies.
Comment: Section 1.3 requires stronger evidence of supporting learning technology deployment, such as workshop participant feedback.
I agree that the original section did not sufficiently substantiate my contribution to supporting the deployment of learning technologies.
I have expanded the account of my involvement in the UTS Canvas implementation between 2018 and 2020, identifying the academic cohorts supported, the workshop structure, the pedagogical framework informing the training, and the strategies I used to support participants.
The revised section places particular emphasis on how I supported colleagues to reconsider their subject design through the use of Canvas Student View and individual guidance.
I have also acknowledged the limitations of the evaluation evidence currently presented. While the existing account establishes that professional learning activities were delivered, this does not, on its own, demonstrate sustained changes to teaching practice.
Section 2.1: Developing and extending knowledge of pedagogies and learning technologies
I agree that the original portfolio described my pedagogical commitments without adequately explaining how these translated into the design and selection of learning technologies.
I have expanded Section 2a to provide a more detailed account of how constructive alignment informed the design of the GCLD, including decisions concerning flipped learning, synchronous and asynchronous activities, and portfolio-based assessment.
The revised discussion connects each pedagogical decision to particular technologies and explains the learning processes that the technologies were intended to support.
I have also strengthened the critical reflection, recognising that flexibility and interactivity do not automatically lead to effective learning and that pedagogical design requires ongoing evaluation.
The intended supporting evidence includes curriculum documentation, assessment instructions and examples of the learning objects students were asked to create.
Section 2.2: Understanding target learners
Thank you for the positive assessment of this section and for recognising the use of learner personas to identify learner needs and inform design decisions.
I have retained the learner personas as a central example and preserved the explanation of how they informed the course structure and flexible online delivery.
The revisions are limited to clarifying the model of online participation and strengthening reflection on the limitations of learner personas.
In particular, the revised account acknowledges that personas cannot represent all individual learners and should inform, rather than replace, continuing consultation and evaluation.
Section 3a: Legislative responsibilities and evidence of practice
I agree that the original submission required stronger evidence of how I engaged with legislation and how relevant responsibilities influenced my professional decisions.
The revised section focuses principally on accessibility legislation and its implications for online learning design, supported by a shorter discussion of student privacy.
I have made the practical implications of these responsibilities more explicit and reflected on the challenges associated with the accessibility of interactive resources and the handling of student information.
The revision also acknowledges the role of institutional expertise and the importance of seeking appropriate specialist advice.
I intend to support this account with relevant examples of course materials and any available accessibility or privacy documentation.
Where evidence is unavailable, I have avoided treating general awareness of a legal obligation as proof of formal compliance.
Section 3b: Policies and standards, evidence and critical reflection
Thank you for recommending a more focused treatment of policies and standards.
I have revised Section 3b around the example of mapping the Master of Teaching (Secondary) curriculum and assessment to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, with the AQF discussed as a secondary example.
The revised reflection examines both the value and limitations of standards mapping, including the risk of treating it as a procedural compliance activity rather than an opportunity to scrutinise curriculum and assessment quality.
I will incorporate a relevant mapping artefact and, if available, evidence of decisions or changes arising from the mapping exercise.
This will provide a stronger account of how standards influenced practice, rather than simply identifying the standards with which I was familiar.
Section 4: Institutional communication, effectiveness and challenges
I appreciate the recognition of the existing evidence of communication and engagement within professional communities.
I have revised Section 4 to provide a more balanced account of institutional and external communication.
The revised section uses my involvement in the UTS Canvas deployment to explain why I combined workshops, demonstrations and individual consultations, and how these approaches responded to differences in colleagues’ professional responsibilities and technical confidence.
It also discusses the value of collaborative activities, including asking academics to experience courses through Canvas Student View.
The revised reflection considers the effectiveness and limitations of different methods of communication and acknowledges the need for stronger evaluation beyond participation and satisfaction measures.
I have also made reciprocal professional learning more explicit in the discussion of AALD, ASCILITE and mentoring activities.
Section 5: Specialist Option
I agree that the original Specialist Option attempted to cover two substantial areas of practice, limiting the depth of reflection and evidence available for either.
The revised Specialist Option has been narrowed to Inclusive Learning Design.
It now concentrates on two interconnected examples: the inclusive design of the GCLD and the development of the open educational resource Designing Learning Experiences for Inclusivity and Diversity.
The revised discussion makes the pedagogical foundations of this work more explicit, particularly Universal Design for Learning, and provides greater reflection on the distinction between technical accessibility, flexible participation and meaningful inclusion.
I have also strengthened the critical reflection on the limitations of download figures and other measures of resource reach as evidence of educational impact.
The revised section will be supported by the OER itself.
My work in critical media literacy remains relevant to my wider professional practice but is no longer presented as a second specialist topic within this section.
Explicit demonstration of the CMALT core principles and values
I agree that the four core principles were not sufficiently explicit in the original submission.
I propose to strengthen the relationship between these principles and the revised portfolio through a clear mapping to substantive examples of professional practice.
In particular, I have addressed the two principles identified as requiring further evidence:
Commitment to keeping up to date with new technologies: This is demonstrated principally through the revised discussion of professional learning and technical experimentation in Section 1b, supported by the continued development of pedagogical and technological knowledge in Section 2a.
Empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues: This is demonstrated principally through the revised accounts of institutional collaboration, professional networks and mentorship in Sections 1c and 4.
The other principles remain supported through the portfolio’s discussion of the relationship between technology and learning, and through evidence of professional communication and dissemination.
I intend for the mapping to direct assessors to specific examples, evidence and reflection rather than relying on a general statement of commitment.
Conclusion
I am grateful to both assessors for their constructive engagement with my portfolio.
The feedback has prompted me to reconsider how I represent my professional experience, particularly the distinction between describing activities and providing a critical account of how my knowledge and practice have developed.
The revised portfolio seeks to make my pedagogical reasoning, professional collaboration, engagement with legal and institutional responsibilities, and continuing professional learning more explicit.
I also recognise the importance of supporting professional claims with appropriate evidence and distinguishing the reach of an activity from its demonstrated impact.
I believe that these changes will provide a more coherent, transparent and critically reflective account of my work in learning technology.