The most valuable aspect of the process for me personally has been a discussion about the meaning of criticality.
Firstly comments made by my peer-review partners led me to think more deeply about the issue of 'criticality". Andy Roberts first picked up on this in my review of the literature on action research. He suggested in a chat that I needed to put more of my own thoughts and opinions into the report. Eve Thirkle then agreed saying that there was little of 'me' in the report in general. I felt that I needed to be more sure of what was meant by 'criticality' and a series of e-mails followed where we explored our interpretations of the concept as a group. We then involved my learning facilitator and I asked for his input as well.
This whole discussion was very helpful to me. It enabled me to go back through my report and make sure I had included my thoughts and opinions. It also means that I have identified the importance of this concept for future enquiries.
It has made me think deeply about criticality and my reluctance to 'put myself' into my work.
Peer-reviewing my partners' work has also had considerable value for me. Andy Roberts' method of planning his action enquiry on 43Things using SMART targets for each phase of the enquiry has been fascinating to follow. I used 43Things for some of my initial planning but then moved off it and into my private learning journal. Andy has been able to sustain his planning in this web-based format which allowed his partners and learning facilitator to comment as his plans developed. I've been very impressed with the way his use of SMART targets has worked in the context of his enquiry. It is something I would consider for other enquiries in the future.
Looking at both my partners' work and trying to give them constructive feedback has been very difficult. It is hard to develop this skill of 'critical friendship'. We have been part of an informal peer-review group for over a year now and I think we are only just starting to do more than give specific praise or pick up obvious errors or inconsistencies in our work. However, the value for me often comes in our discussions about the underlying concepts and principles.
I'd like to see us do more of this. I'm also keen to read each other's work more deeply in the future and begin to apply more criticality to our peer-reviewing.
My learning facilitator has suggested that looking at each other's finished work and providing feedback on that is where we will gain most. Time pressures have left little opportunity for that to be included in this report, with all of us working on our final drafts right up to the deadline. We all work in a similar non-linear way, which means that none of the sections are 'finished' until we have a final draft.
When we first started peer-reviewing early in Year 1 we only submitted work after it had been sent for marking. In some ways this was more helpful as we weren't trying to write our own stuff at the same time.
index
Firstly comments made by my peer-review partners led me to think more deeply about the issue of 'criticality". Andy Roberts first picked up on this in my review of the literature on action research. He suggested in a chat that I needed to put more of my own thoughts and opinions into the report. Eve Thirkle then agreed saying that there was little of 'me' in the report in general. I felt that I needed to be more sure of what was meant by 'criticality' and a series of e-mails followed where we explored our interpretations of the concept as a group. We then involved my learning facilitator and I asked for his input as well.
This whole discussion was very helpful to me. It enabled me to go back through my report and make sure I had included my thoughts and opinions. It also means that I have identified the importance of this concept for future enquiries.
It has made me think deeply about criticality and my reluctance to 'put myself' into my work.
Peer-reviewing my partners' work has also had considerable value for me. Andy Roberts' method of planning his action enquiry on 43Things using SMART targets for each phase of the enquiry has been fascinating to follow. I used 43Things for some of my initial planning but then moved off it and into my private learning journal. Andy has been able to sustain his planning in this web-based format which allowed his partners and learning facilitator to comment as his plans developed. I've been very impressed with the way his use of SMART targets has worked in the context of his enquiry. It is something I would consider for other enquiries in the future.
Looking at both my partners' work and trying to give them constructive feedback has been very difficult. It is hard to develop this skill of 'critical friendship'. We have been part of an informal peer-review group for over a year now and I think we are only just starting to do more than give specific praise or pick up obvious errors or inconsistencies in our work. However, the value for me often comes in our discussions about the underlying concepts and principles.
I'd like to see us do more of this. I'm also keen to read each other's work more deeply in the future and begin to apply more criticality to our peer-reviewing.
My learning facilitator has suggested that looking at each other's finished work and providing feedback on that is where we will gain most. Time pressures have left little opportunity for that to be included in this report, with all of us working on our final drafts right up to the deadline. We all work in a similar non-linear way, which means that none of the sections are 'finished' until we have a final draft.
When we first started peer-reviewing early in Year 1 we only submitted work after it had been sent for marking. In some ways this was more helpful as we weren't trying to write our own stuff at the same time.
index