Working in groups of any kind can be both challenging and rewarding as each person brings something different to the table. This week within the Applied Digital Learning program at Lamar University, we were tasked with completing a peer review for work done by other classmates. The peer review was to be conducted over an original article that was created either individually or with a partner, and was geared towards possible publication either on an online blog site, educational magazine, or perhaps a scholarly journal. Once our original draft was complete we were tasked with obtaining at least two peer reviews that consisted of feedback given in conjunction with the use of a predetermined rubric.
So far within the program my peer group consists of the same 4 core members that were established within the first semester of classes. For this project however, myself and another core member, Angela, decided to step out of our comfort zone and worked with two different classmates for the peer review. Nicole and Sabine were the classmates whom we chose to work with and right from the beginning we found ourselves meshing well together, with each of us offering valuable contributions to the group.
Nicole and Sabine hit the ground running, and got right on creating a rubric for us to use for peer review. With mine and Angela’s suggestions the four of us were able to quickly create a simple and easy to follow rubric, which Nicole graciously put together and shared with each of us to use.
Once we got down to actually peer reviewing I can honestly say that it was more challenging than I had originally anticipated. Reviewing for grammar, syntax, and general coherency are one thing, and are areas that are much easier to review and edit, but content to publish is outside of my element. As someone who has never been published professionally, and with so many different mediums to publish in, I found it incredibly challenging to know whether my suggestions or critiques lined up with the 'publication' direction of each article. Additionally, I found it hard not to compare one article to the next, or even to my own, which served no real benefit as each publication avenue can have very different specification. Where the article is planning to be published is just as important as what is being published, as the style and delivery of content tends to change drastically with these key details.
Overall, I can say that the whole experience, from branching out and working with a new group, to participating in a two way feedforward peer review session, has given me a new level of appreciation towards the publication process. Peer review allows you to have another set of eyes dive into your content and really give you a different perspective on your work. In the end, I am excited to see if any of us are able to get published and if not then it is a learning experience that is sure to continue to add value to my learning journey.
Comments