I was challenged with the task of providing peer commentary to three students in my class. Camellia, Ivy, and Breanna proposed a digital artefact accompanied by various forms of ethnographic research and community engagement. Regarding my comments, I provided one resource in each comment. This gave my feedback greater value. The selection of sources considered; relevance to the niche, the digital artefacts method of delivery, and concepts used to build an analytical framework.
When providing feedback, I paid great attention to the analytical frameworks use. I proposed the concept of Pedagogy in my comment to Ivy, it is relevant to the podcast niche and will make her analytical framework stronger. This is because I believe a good combination of concepts will help students theorise and communicate information more effectively, in fact, Student Learning: Quick Guides, by the Southern-Cross University, states “Concepts should be defined BEFORE you use them” (2020, p.1).
Ivy and Breanna’s posts also made me realise the importance of social utility. Therefore, this became a reoccurring trend in both my comments to them. As Ivy was planning on doing a podcast, the social utility could be difficult. I suggested Ivy understand openness as an ethnography practice. This could build her DA’s social utility by becoming involved in community-related discourses. In my comment to Breanna, I tried my best to avoid sounding hypocritical as aspects of her social utility which I criticised, I myself had not done.
As Camellia had outlined her digital artefact’s social utility and concepts quite well, her idea was well established. Commenting on Camellia’s post made me understand it may not be enough to simply list concepts but briefly discuss why you have chosen them. Therefore, I felt the need to explain why each source I provided was relevant and how it may improve the digital artefact. My decision was reinforced as “feedback is more effective when it is focused” (Brinko 1993, p.580). I provided Ivy with research that was relevant to her niche and digital artefact. Camellia’s pitch video was executed very well, and I made sure to mention that.
Unfortunately, at times I felt my ability to improve aspects of the digital artefact overshadowed any feedback I gave praising what work had already been done. Although I made sure to limit the amount of negative feedback, outlined in ‘The Practice of Giving Feedback to Improve Teaching’, “feedback is more effective when it contains a moderate amount of positive feedback”. I could have been more positive, as positive feedback is “more accurately perceived” (Brinko 1993, p.583).
Overall, these three blogs have made me excited to see what can become of the digital artefacts in BCM241. The peer commentary has given me a lot to think about regarding my digital artefact and giving feedback. The value in my comments came mainly from the sources I provided. The sources were reputable and did a good job of covering at least one aspect of the digital artefacts. I am indeed looking forwards to keeping up with the DAs and the BCM241 beta presentations!
Why not read more? Comment below your thoughts!
Brinko, K T. 1993, ‘The Practice of Giving Feedback to Improve Teaching’, The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 574-593. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221546.1993.11778449?journalCode=uhej20>
Jham, BC. Duraes, GV. Strassler, HE. & Sensi, LG. 2008, ‘Joining the Podcast Revolution, Journal of Dental Education, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 278-281. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2008.72.3.tb04493.x?casa_token=J6Jun_-rLkwAAAAA%3AdrsdTFM8NlH8UonncEosK1nGerySp7VZQazEGhPxZ65MLsmfBue3oIn2rbs-9uwdP9Z3CrLV4-bcsA>
Learning Experience Team, 2020, ‘Student Learning Zone: Quick Guides’, the Southern Cross University, pdf p.1-4 <https://www.scu.edu.au/media/scueduau/staff/teaching-and-learning/ctl-document-downloads/as-academic-integrity-guides/define_and_use_concepts_in_your_writing_0418.pdf>.
Walker, B 2014, ‘Making sense of community in RuneScape’, University of London. <https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/38764854/FRNC2_DyslexiaSticker_MakingSenseOfCommunityInRuneScape_Personal-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1630039754&Signature=E0p7OnIgycMvmzJEXFVA6feg7sFO7eODrqRxlvpdqdbuLio-JcalCMrWgnTpT-4FwUFm-x5qu8be6OqTrKBCs0g5v-j91otPsB3AhvnjXxqBuQinCU3myzShiiTLjLYuxjU8VP~JfZlJzLd0Dx0nm7tIKWxGe7OhHqgYxVcxJER1C5pxyP4F4t5PvoibDxGuSdyIgZPYEvrkIjnxsBsgFtxNDmydAv9L04gUsR1~eV6531IvaCheXLH488lyhZ6Efzi1WtJd-5rLLHCVuh5pwjtRClBh3MCHgdBRr5KRdCrjCTERvgNY67lElTlal0vPiEbkJusPKgj-7yuHk-ig9w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA>.
Wallack, L 1990, ‘Two approaches to health promotion in the mass media’, World Health Forum, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.143-164. <https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/52235/WHF_1990_11(2)_p143-164.pdf?sequence=1>