Who were my peer reviewers?
As part of my assessment in the Networked and Global Learning course, I had to generate two peer reviews for my design based research proposal. I chose/ asked/ begged two colleagues from my institution. The first one was Colin Beer, who works in the Office of Learning and Teaching at the university that I work at. He has a plethora of knowledge on Connectivism and is currently doing a PhD in and around this topic. I have had many a discussion about what I am studying this term, my struggles and my epiphanies and ahah moments. I thought he would be a perfect candidate for peer reviewing my work. Although Colin is not someone I know through the internet or online community, I did not form a network with him through a technological capacity, but he does remain as a node in my network you could say :)
The second person I chose was Professor Leone Hinton, who is the Dean of the School of Nursing and Midwifery where I work, has a monumental amount of experience, research and study under her belt about education, teaching and learning and all the theories and research that goes with all of that. I have researched with her before, and I felt comfortable with her reviewing my work, as apart from her background, she gives me no holes barred feedback. I should probably also mention that she is my mother and therefore she is brutally honest with me, but in a nice way that I know how to take it :)
Both colleagues have also seen my course and therefore could grasp whether the changes I was suggesting I make would work or not.
How did I go about generating the peer review?
I posted my DBR online and asked Leone to provide feedback in the comments section and I asked Colin how he would prefer to provide feedback and he suggested he do it on his blog and then send me a link to his feedback using Pingback (all very technical and he gets it but I still don't)!!
The instructions I gave for what they needed to look for and how they needed to review it I posted in my blog also.
Leone's feedback can be found here and Colin's feedback can be found here.
Both made valid points and here is a summary of what changes they suggest I make:
I feel I made all these changes, as I agreed with all the feedback that was given to me, however I didn't really go into too much depth of the differences between all of the learning theories as I felt that this was not really warranted in the proposal. I did also go back over the assessment criteria to re-assess whether I had met all the criteria. Overall the peer review process allowed me a different perspective of my writing and allowed me to reflect on it and refine it.
Thanks Colin and Leone :)
As part of my assessment in the Networked and Global Learning course, I had to generate two peer reviews for my design based research proposal. I chose/ asked/ begged two colleagues from my institution. The first one was Colin Beer, who works in the Office of Learning and Teaching at the university that I work at. He has a plethora of knowledge on Connectivism and is currently doing a PhD in and around this topic. I have had many a discussion about what I am studying this term, my struggles and my epiphanies and ahah moments. I thought he would be a perfect candidate for peer reviewing my work. Although Colin is not someone I know through the internet or online community, I did not form a network with him through a technological capacity, but he does remain as a node in my network you could say :)
The second person I chose was Professor Leone Hinton, who is the Dean of the School of Nursing and Midwifery where I work, has a monumental amount of experience, research and study under her belt about education, teaching and learning and all the theories and research that goes with all of that. I have researched with her before, and I felt comfortable with her reviewing my work, as apart from her background, she gives me no holes barred feedback. I should probably also mention that she is my mother and therefore she is brutally honest with me, but in a nice way that I know how to take it :)
Both colleagues have also seen my course and therefore could grasp whether the changes I was suggesting I make would work or not.
How did I go about generating the peer review?
I posted my DBR online and asked Leone to provide feedback in the comments section and I asked Colin how he would prefer to provide feedback and he suggested he do it on his blog and then send me a link to his feedback using Pingback (all very technical and he gets it but I still don't)!!
The instructions I gave for what they needed to look for and how they needed to review it I posted in my blog also.
Leone's feedback can be found here and Colin's feedback can be found here.
Both made valid points and here is a summary of what changes they suggest I make:
- Explain Heutagogy in the introduction;
- Make your implementation plan tighter to link back to the methodology;
- Conley's model needs to be unpacked in the introduction, as well the Image of Conley's model needs to have explanation, otherwise get rid of it;
- Perhaps add an abstract to situate the reader as well as a conclusion to sum it all up and not leave the reader hanging;
- Constructivism & Connectivism discussed. Discuss how this is different in relation to heutagogy.
I feel I made all these changes, as I agreed with all the feedback that was given to me, however I didn't really go into too much depth of the differences between all of the learning theories as I felt that this was not really warranted in the proposal. I did also go back over the assessment criteria to re-assess whether I had met all the criteria. Overall the peer review process allowed me a different perspective of my writing and allowed me to reflect on it and refine it.
Thanks Colin and Leone :)