From about 6th grade on, I wanted to be a journalist. I wrote for school papers and Language Arts, taught by my mom, was my favorite class. I loved telling human interest stories… my favorite being about my coaches and how they managed work and family. I was only 13, yet I understood the sacrifices they were making. I talked about other interesting people in my small town, later, my college community, and then as a news reporter in Abilene, Texas. I just loved putting the spotlight on others. However, when Dr Grogan told us we were to create an article for possible publication, writer's block hit hard! I could easily tell other people's stories for decades now, but sharing my own knowledge was proving to be a bit trickier. With the help of my classmates, aka collaboration/accountability/support group, this task was made so much easier. I shared my rough draft and gratefully had 3 friends critique my thoughts. I was also able to review 5 classmates' papers and my editor's heart was happy to help.
We used the same Peer Assessment Criteria for all peer reviews.
Alignment with Learning Priority (10 points):
● Justification: The extent to which the draft prioritizes learning over
technology, ensuring that technology serves as a catalyst for enhanced
learning experiences.
Engagement with Thought Leaders (10 points):
● Justification: Evaluation of the integration and application of ideas from
influential thought leaders, including Dewey, Bruner, Vygotsky, Papert,
Piaget, and Roger Schank, to support arguments and perspectives.
Clarity of Voice and Perspective (10 points):
● Justification: Assessment of the clarity and coherence of the author's
voice and perspective, including the articulation of authentic experiences,
insights, and visions for the educational context.
Integration of Cognitive Processes (10 points):
● Justification: Analysis of the incorporation of cognitive processes such as
prediction, modeling, experimentation, evaluation, diagnosis, planning,
causing, judgment, influence, teamwork, negotiation, and describing, to
strengthen arguments and illustrate key points.
Publication Readiness (10 points):
● Justification: Evaluation of the draft's readiness for publication,
considering adherence to submission requirements, clarity of structure,
and potential for contribution to relevant journals or publications.
Scoring Rubric:
● 45-50 points: Exceptional - The draft demonstrates outstanding alignment with
assessment criteria, providing valuable insights and contributions.
● 35-44 points: Satisfactory - The draft meets most assessment criteria adequately,
with room for improvement in certain areas.
● 25-34 points: Developing - The draft exhibits some alignment with assessment
criteria but lacks depth or clarity in key areas.
● 0-24 points: Insufficient - The draft fails to meet fundamental assessment
criteria, requiring significant revisions to align with expectations.
The average of my three reviews was 48/50 points. I greatly appreciated the honesty, candor and positive responses to my work. On the feedforward front, all three reviewers felt a deeper dive was needed on some points and elaboration on activites was requested. It was validating to know my topic was of interest and well received, the research and data points were strengths, and connection to thought leaders could be added, but wasn't necessary in this type of article. I would tell my 4th grade writers to get their ideas on paper and we'd bedazzle it together. I look forward to bedazzling my thoughts with the ideas provided by my peers in order to share it with larger audiences.
Comments