During the review and consultation process of my design-based research I was determined to receive relevant, appropriate commentary as opposed to feedback focused on personal opinion and content structure. So, I made the decision to send out theories, concepts and research questions to my colleagues instead of an entire proposal.
I have a fear that peer reviews often miss the point. Unless the reviewers understand what they are providing feedback on, my experience is that often, a lot of time is spent commenting on syntax and structure instead of considering whether the content, descriptions and processes achieve the goals that have been set. To counter this potential issue I decided two things:
The process appeared as follows:
I have a fear that peer reviews often miss the point. Unless the reviewers understand what they are providing feedback on, my experience is that often, a lot of time is spent commenting on syntax and structure instead of considering whether the content, descriptions and processes achieve the goals that have been set. To counter this potential issue I decided two things:
- Firstly, to ensure relevant comments would be sought from colleagues, with the option available to classmates if they so desired. My colleagues are instructional designers, understand the issues our profession faces and know how to effectively offer me feedback. My proposal is focused on instructional design methodology, so my theory was that their suggestions would be contextually relevant.
- Secondly, in order to avoid feedback focused on word use, formatting and structure I would not ask a finished document to be reviewed, but instead present my working theories for scrutiny. Therefore, comments could be solely focused on the objectives of the research and see the adaptations made as a result.
The process appeared as follows:
- Initial theory: Where feedback was asked from the group and colleagues.
- Draft problem statement: Problem loosely defined after initial consultation and more feedback sought.
- Draft research questions: Questions based on draft problem statement considered and feedback sought.
- Proposal completed: Feedback collated, additional research undertaken and results compiled.
Phase 1: Initial theory
Phases 2 and 3: Draft problem statement and research questions
- 30 days from deadline:
- Concept presented in a separate page on my blog as an articulation of initial musings.
- A few leading questions asked to garner genuine opinion.
- Some feedback received, but not a great deal of detail.
- 25 days from deadline:
- Link was created from my blog homepage to attract students’ feedback.
- Link appeared on course Weebly feed, no comments were received.
Phases 2 and 3: Draft problem statement and research questions
- 10 days before deadline:
- Draft problem statement and draft research questions were presented on DBR page.
- A link was given to three colleagues at work in order to gain specific feedback.
- Some helpful comments received about content and potential outcomes.
- Four days from deadline:
- Research questions rewritten based on feedback.
- Three days from deadline:
- Problem statement modified and posted.
- Final comments made on problem statement and research questions.
Phase 4: Proposal completed
In summary, the approach I took worked well. It allowed time to propose ideas, receive feedback and research further. Commentators were relevant to the outcome and directly invited to provide input, but the process also included the potential for fellow students to comment if desired.
Involving others at the concept stage greatly assisted narrowing the scope of the research and determining adequate research questions. Had an entire proposal been written prior to comments there may have been too much set in stone to alter outcomes and too many unnecessary comments made. Furthermore, making the decision to send colleagues a direct link to the blog pages proved quite beneficial as it instilled a sense of responsibility in their responses, thus producing more detail and careful thought, where only basic comments had been received earlier. Without those actions I fear my proposal would have been too broad and unspecific.
- Two days from deadline:
- Final comments collated and proposal completed.
- Deadline day:
- Proposal checked against problem statement, comments and outcomes.
- Proposal posted.
In summary, the approach I took worked well. It allowed time to propose ideas, receive feedback and research further. Commentators were relevant to the outcome and directly invited to provide input, but the process also included the potential for fellow students to comment if desired.
Involving others at the concept stage greatly assisted narrowing the scope of the research and determining adequate research questions. Had an entire proposal been written prior to comments there may have been too much set in stone to alter outcomes and too many unnecessary comments made. Furthermore, making the decision to send colleagues a direct link to the blog pages proved quite beneficial as it instilled a sense of responsibility in their responses, thus producing more detail and careful thought, where only basic comments had been received earlier. Without those actions I fear my proposal would have been too broad and unspecific.