Our BCM215 Digital Artefacts

I was challenged with the task of providing peer commentary to three students in my class. Lily, Luke, and Ann proposed a digital artefact accompanied by a textual analysis of a media game text.  Regarding my comments, I provided one resource in each comment. This gave my feedback greater value. The selection of sources considered; relevance to the digital artefacts and concepts used to build an analytical framework.

Lily – who knew running would be a game, right?

When providing feedback, I paid great attention to the analytical frameworks use. Lily’s concept of gamification was very interesting and her pitch gave me the opportunity to learn about gamification. I noticed her pitch was not specify game related like many of the other ones. I was actually quite impressed by the way she made her digital artefact fit into the contrast of the assessment. I provided her with a reputable source to help build her idea. I have no doubt she will do really well. Gamification is a good concept, and 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).

Luke – Arcadetics

Luke had an impressive pitch, he had constructed a very good analytical framework. Therefore, I felt no need to suggest any concepts. Therefore, to provide value feedback I suggested a reading for one of his concepts. As Luke had outlined his digital artefact’s social utility and concepts quite well, his idea was well established. Commenting on Luke’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.  

Ann’s DA was the final one I commented on. At this point I was very happy to see a student propose a DA that was not a video game. Unfortunately for my comments, I didn’t know much about board games and I felt any thing I have to offer wouldn’t be too useful. Ann didn’t mention anything about her analytical framework concepts, therefore, I felt no need to suggest something I didn’t know much about. However, the value of my comment came from suggesting a topic of collaborative board games. I offered a very good source that explores the design aspect of her digital artefact.

Ann – BCM215 Pitch: Hangouts Made Better – Board Games

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. 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). I think I failed to do this in my BCM241 peer commentary which i have since learnt from. Before 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, i made sure to avoid doing this during this round of peer commentary.

Overall, these three blogs have made me excited to see what can become of the digital artefacts in BCM215. 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 BCM215 beta presentations!

Why not read more? Comment below your thoughts!

References:

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&gt>.

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&gt>.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s