My initial post identified the problem of a lack of digital literacies for both students and staff in higher education. After consultation with the course examiner via email and consideration of the options, I decided to pursue the problem of the lack of digital literacies of staff working in higher education.
During this formative time I was able to identify potential external reviewers. Trisha is an educational technologist and has recently been employed by USQ’s Learning and Teaching Services and is based on the Toowoomba Campus. She is undertaking doctoral research using the Design Based Research (DBR) approach and during October I was able to have face-to-face discussions with her about my proposed intervention, and if it would fit the requirements for a DBR proposal. I made an informal request for her to provide peer review feedback and she accepted. My other reviewer Katie, was referred to me as a result of my original request to a colleague working in education at USQ. Katie works at Fraser Coast Campus and is also undertaking doctoral studies using DBR, and after email communication she also agreed to provide peer review feedback. This was followed up by a formal email request to both reviewers, which contained the following information about the requirements for the peer review process:
- My background and context
- Peer Review Guidelines
- Comments or thoughts arising from the “problem” activity.
- Comments or suggestions on research questions.
- Feedback about how the proposal or planned intervention might work.
- Feedback from a networked and global learning perspective – principles and literature used or consulted in the proposal.
- A summary of information of the requirements for assignment 2
- Links to assessment details on the course site and for the marking rubric.
Both reviewers were happy to use Google docs and a date was planned for Draft 1 to be available, and reviewers were emailed a link on 3 November. As this was only partly written up and sections still in note form, this document was a work in progress, until the remaining sections were written in full and the majority of Draft 1 comments had been addressed.Draft 2 was made available on 10 November to both reviewers, as well as via a link on my blog post, where I explained the process I had been working through and also provided a link to the Draft 1 version to make this process visible. Unfortunately, problems were experienced with sharing and visibility of comments in Google docs, which resulted in each reviewer providing comments on separate docs. To overcome this I responded to their comments on each document, and shared back to both reviewers.
The feedback relating to the DBR process was especially useful to a novice DBR student, as there was a deal of uncertainty about the task I was undertaking. However I did need to point out to my reviewers that we were only required to utilize certain aspects of the DBR cycle for the requirements of this assessment piece. Their comments did help me to understand the bigger picture of the requirements for a full research cycle, as Katie provided a summary table developed as an example of illustrating linkages of the various aspects, which needed to be considered in a full DBR cycle. The feedback and comments provided valuable suggestions for location of content, and where further definition and analysis was required in the proposal. As a student new to DBR, it was encouraging to receive positive feedback on aspects they felt had been effectively addressed.
Feedback was also provided by Phillip Wong, and the suggested resources provided will be followed up, as I was unable to integrate the information to my existing DBR version. Paul Size also provided comments on the shared Google doc, which enabled me to further analyze some of my statements and revise for the final version. The peer review process provided the opportunity to integrate new perspectives to the proposal, although the issues experienced with technology prevented the desired transparency for the process.