Ideh Dadgaran 
, Mahdoukht Taheri * , Abtin Heidarzadeh , Afshin Shafaghi , Molouk Pouralizadeh , Firoozeh Firoozehchian
, Mahdoukht Taheri * , Abtin Heidarzadeh , Afshin Shafaghi , Molouk Pouralizadeh , Firoozeh Firoozehchian
Medical Education Research Center, Education Development Center.Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran , taheri1049@gmil.com
Abstract: (99 Views)
To Dear Editor
In the contemporary era, universities require a transformation in educational systems to keep pace with the needs of the 21st-century learner society; a process in which faculty members play a pivotal role (1, 2). One effective approach in this domain is the “Gallery Walk,” during which participants in small groups share their responses and, by rotating through the classroom, practice peer feedback and critical thinking (3). However, limitations in physical space and difficulties in documenting results are challenges of the traditional version of this method that can be addressed through digital technology.
Modern technologies, particularly digital boards and interactive platforms such as Miro, have overcome these obstacles. These tools facilitate text writing, diagram drawing, and file sharing by providing a limitless and synchronous platform. These tools function within a digital learning ecosystem where the instructor acts as a facilitator and designer of the learning environment (4, 5). Nevertheless, technology alone is insufficient, and adopting a metacognitive approach is essential for faculty. Empowering them with learning monitoring and strategy analysis skills helps them regulate their thought processes and, by viewing through the lens of the students, achieve the highest degree of educational effectiveness (6, 7).
To systematically design and implement the faculty empowerment program using this innovative method, and due to the significance of the subject, the Backward Design model, comprising three stages, was adopted (8).
Stages of Integrated Workshop Design and Implementation Based on the Backward Design Model
Phase A: Identify Desired Accomplishments
In this phase, the final learning objectives of the workshop were defined with a focus on a wide range of abilities regarding the design of various types of standard written examinations.
Phase B: Determine Acceptable Evidence
To measure the achievement of the goals determined in the previous phase, assessment methods to access the objectives were specified (Checklists for question quality, quality of participation, and quality of peer feedback).
Phase C: Plan Learning Experiences & Instruction
This section comprised 5 main phases:
In the contemporary era, universities require a transformation in educational systems to keep pace with the needs of the 21st-century learner society; a process in which faculty members play a pivotal role (1, 2). One effective approach in this domain is the “Gallery Walk,” during which participants in small groups share their responses and, by rotating through the classroom, practice peer feedback and critical thinking (3). However, limitations in physical space and difficulties in documenting results are challenges of the traditional version of this method that can be addressed through digital technology.
Modern technologies, particularly digital boards and interactive platforms such as Miro, have overcome these obstacles. These tools facilitate text writing, diagram drawing, and file sharing by providing a limitless and synchronous platform. These tools function within a digital learning ecosystem where the instructor acts as a facilitator and designer of the learning environment (4, 5). Nevertheless, technology alone is insufficient, and adopting a metacognitive approach is essential for faculty. Empowering them with learning monitoring and strategy analysis skills helps them regulate their thought processes and, by viewing through the lens of the students, achieve the highest degree of educational effectiveness (6, 7).
To systematically design and implement the faculty empowerment program using this innovative method, and due to the significance of the subject, the Backward Design model, comprising three stages, was adopted (8).
Stages of Integrated Workshop Design and Implementation Based on the Backward Design Model
Phase A: Identify Desired Accomplishments
In this phase, the final learning objectives of the workshop were defined with a focus on a wide range of abilities regarding the design of various types of standard written examinations.
Phase B: Determine Acceptable Evidence
To measure the achievement of the goals determined in the previous phase, assessment methods to access the objectives were specified (Checklists for question quality, quality of participation, and quality of peer feedback).
Phase C: Plan Learning Experiences & Instruction
This section comprised 5 main phases:
- Training and Platform Presentation: Initially, practical and rapid training on key Miro capabilities for design and collaboration was provided to the participants. Subsequently, a QR code corresponding to the digital board designed in Miro was given to the participants.
- Gallery Walk Experience:Participants viewed various stations designed on the Miro board via their mobile phones. Each station was dedicated to explaining a category of exam types:
- Station A: Closed Questions
- Station B: Short Answer Questions
- Station C: Open Questions
- Designing Questions on the Digital Board (Practical Exercise): After visiting the virtual stations, participants were initially divided into 4 groups, and a representative was selected for each group. Then, each group designed sample questions related to the learning objectives and the challenge presented on their board, and the group representative recorded them on the corresponding digital board.
- Feedback and Peer Review: On the digital board, each group was assigned a specific sticker color (Yellow, Blue, Green, Pink). The main task of the groups was to visit the boards of other groups and provide their opinions, questions, and suggestions in the form of text comments and by placing their specific colored stickers on the answers of other groups.
- Note: Participants were also able to use other Miro board features such as inserting links, images, graphs, etc., to offer suggestions on the designed questions. Participants had access to checklist links within the same digital board, through which they could rate the quality of questions designed by other groups. The facilitator evaluated group activities throughout the workshop based on the designed checklist, and at the end of the workshop, oral feedback was provided to each group by the instructors.
- Conclusion and Sharing: After the groups recorded their opinions via their representatives on the digital board (in the form of comments, colored stickers, etc.), the recorded results were presented via the workshop whiteboard, and final feedback and a conclusion were provided by the workshop instructors.
Evaluation: Based on the results obtained from the feedback of 22 workshop participants, the majority of participants (over 85%) were satisfied and in favor of employing and using the virtual board. The results of the peer review evaluation and inter-team interaction indicated the effectiveness of holding the empowerment course using the aforementioned method for faculty members.
Conclusion and Achievemen
The design and implementation of this workshop successfully demonstrated how a metacognitive approach, grounded in direct experience, can facilitate deeper and more enduring learning among faculty. Professors not only increased their theoretical knowledge regarding the design of a wide spectrum of written question types but also, by acquiring practical skills in using Miro, gained a powerful tool for collaboration and mutual improvement in academic processes. Integrating this process within the Backward Design framework guaranteed that all activities were aligned with the specific and meaningful objectives of the workshop, namely empowering professors in the field of designing effective written exams.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Article Writing Process
The authors declare that in the process of model selection and text editing for this article, AI technologies Gemini 3 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast, were utilized.
Conclusion and Achievemen
The design and implementation of this workshop successfully demonstrated how a metacognitive approach, grounded in direct experience, can facilitate deeper and more enduring learning among faculty. Professors not only increased their theoretical knowledge regarding the design of a wide spectrum of written question types but also, by acquiring practical skills in using Miro, gained a powerful tool for collaboration and mutual improvement in academic processes. Integrating this process within the Backward Design framework guaranteed that all activities were aligned with the specific and meaningful objectives of the workshop, namely empowering professors in the field of designing effective written exams.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Article Writing Process
The authors declare that in the process of model selection and text editing for this article, AI technologies Gemini 3 Pro and Grok 4.1 Fast, were utilized.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Educational technology, e-Learning,Virtual Education
References
1. Barnett R. The ecological university: A feasible utopia: Routledge; 2017. [DOI:10.4324/9781315194899]
2. Gibbs G. Reflections on the changing nature of educational development. International journal for academic development. 2013;18(1):4-14. [DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2013.751691]
3. Alkhateeb NE, Bigdeli S, Mirhosseini FM. Enhancing student engagement in electronic platforms: e-gallery walk. Acta Medica Iranica. 2024:74-9. [DOI:10.18502/acta.v62i2.17038]
4. Allah RK. The use of Miro in teaching practice. Exchanges: The Interdisciplinary Research Journal. 2023;10(3):77-91. [DOI:10.31273/eirj.v10i3.1277]
5. Nkrahene NS. Best Collaborative Whiteboard Software 2025. 2025.
6. Lin X, Schwartz DL, Hatano G. Toward teachers' adaptive metacognition. Computers as Metacognitive Tools for Enhancing Learning: Routledge; 2018. : 245-55. [DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_6]
7. Zohar A. Teachers' metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and teacher Education. 1999;15(4):413-29. [DOI:10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00063-8]
8. Lungu I. Backward Design-An Innovative Instructional Model in Planning Higher Education Courses. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, Series VII: Social Sciences and Law. 2024;17(2.2-Suppl):99-108. [DOI:10.31926/but.ssl.2024.17.66.4.9]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
