Peer Review

For peer review of this design based research task, the following procedure was followed:

Initially I had a meeting with my Head of School to discuss an outline of my proposition. I emailed it to him, then met with him a week later to discuss issues that he could foresee in the implementation of the DBR. It was decided that an open NGL was not appropriate at this stage in the student’s schooling due to the clientele at our school (we cater for a number of public servants being located in Canberra) and our current lack of infrastructure to support the proposal.

I then spent time writing my DBR. I posted an outline to my wordpress site where Brendan responded to the proposal and suggested including a writing buddy program with older students in the school. I believe this is incredibly helpful, however, at this stage in the processes it is unviable. It is hoped that after two terms of implementation we will be able to include this element into our intervention.

After writing my DBR, I sort feedback from a colleague who lectures in Education to ensure an appropriate use of literature and form was used. He thought my paper achieved what I sort to achieve with just a few revisions. His review can be found here.

These revisions were implemented in my final paper.

Finally, the finished paper was submitted to my Head of School for final review and approval for implementation in the new year. Due to his busy workload, he has still not had time to review the paper.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s