Thursday 31 July 2014

Peer Review of a Synthesis Paper

I am about to begin the review of a peer's paper. I have to say that I am not comfortable enough with my own experience to do this.

In Edtech 551, the final submission piece of work was built up over several submissions with the instructor reviewing each submission, offering suggestions for improvement which were fixed and submitted with the next section, this continued until the final piece was done. I liked this, as the draft and review nature of the process allowed time for assimilation and an understanding of the process to develop.

Without access to exemplars that represent good, medium and bad standards of writing, I am not in a position to use the rubric provided in a valid way. A level 5 edit is required of a peer's work, but how can that be achieved if the reader doesn't know anything about the topic?

I will take care to provide my students with the scaffolding and support they need to do their best work.

Post peer review. The paper that I reviewed was on connectivism, a learning theory I haven't read much about. It would seem from the paper that there is some contention that connectivism is indeed a new learning theory or just an amalgamation of several others; I find myself in agreement with the latter stand point. My peer has written well over twice the length she should have that has made my ability to make suggestions for improvement difficult. I have seen from her writing that my paragraphs don't flow together well and I will need to reorganise a lot to make the ideas and contexts link better.

My peer has made some excellent suggestions for improving my work and has been extremely thorough in her review. She has highlighted what I have already identified as a need to improve the flow and connections; I will use her suggestions to improve.

No comments:

Post a Comment