UOPX Material - Web viewThe learning outcomes don’t seem feasible because you state that you are going to be giving a test however you’re not asking about ... motivation was a

Research Prospectus Draft Peer Review FormEDT/711 Version 4

1

University of Phoenix Material

Research Prospectus Draft Peer Review Form

Peer Review Conducted by: Samuel GettmanResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Nicole MastersDate of Review 1/28/16

Address the following questions, and any other questions that arise during the peer review process, in your feedback to your teammates:

1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The learning outcomes don’t seem feasible because you are asking

professionals to participate in PLCs and VLCs. It also seems like you don’t have enough questions to gain a true understanding of the teacher’s perception. You could use a survey and then interviews (as is common in phenomenological studies).

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?

The study doesn’t actual touch much on motivation. There is discussion of why people might participate but doesn’t discuss how you might develop this motivation.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? The comparison of VLC and PLCs doesn’t seem to fit with the research question

or the research methodology. Also, the problem statement doesn’t align with the VLC/PLC comparison. You state the VLC are important because people can’t physically participate in PLC, and yet you still are trying to compare them. It seems like VLC could be used where PLC are not easily accomplished.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?

The discussion of the use of technology was limited and could be improved. The technology is age appropriate.

5. What ethical considerations are included?I don’t see any to consider at this time.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?The citations and use of phenomenology seem to need improvement. I would

consider more research on the matter. The use of statistics and their interreptation could also you support. Lastly, the role of technology in VLC’s and perhaps meeting the needs of face-to-face interactions (like PLC) could be considered.


2



Peer Review Conducted by: Wendy StoutResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Nicole MastersDate of Review 1/28/16


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The learning outcomes don’t seem feasible because you state that you are going

to be giving a test however you’re not asking about knowledge you are asking about perceptions.


It does talk about the education level and expectations of the learner. It also talks about the fact that the there is a current preference to learn in a face-to-face setting. Maybe talk more about the reason behind the wanting to learn face-to-face.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? There is not much alignment with the research problem and the research

question.


Technology that was discussed was the use of virtual learning communities. I think this could be explained a little more. The target audience was discussed and I feel was appropriate for the subject.

5. What ethical considerations are included?As always participant privacy.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?I feel there was some citations missing and done with errors in the paper. You

seem a little unfamiliar with the topic. I applaud you for finding something new. Just read more on the topic.


3



Peer Review Conducted by: Monica WoodsResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Nicole MastersDate of Review 1.29.2016


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.

No. More development in questions that lead to understanding are needed.


Discussion of learner education, interaction, & preferences for PD are included. However, no mention of learner motivation was found.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures?

There seems to be a misalignment with the questions and problem statement. It may be difficult to compare the PLC & VLC as stated.


The technology is age appropriate for the stated sample.

5. What ethical considerations are included?

None included in the draft.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?

Review APA guidelines. Review paper for improvements on grammar, sentence-structure, etc. Your intent for this study seems good. I look forward to reading your finished prospectus.


4



Peer Review Conducted by: Samuel GettmanResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Monica WoodsDate of Review 1/27/16


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The measure of learning were not clearly defined. You indicated several sources

of data but did not discuss when you were collecting the data, how it was being analyzed, or how the data would be used to make inferences about the effective (or ineffective) use of blogs.


Yes most of these characteristics were discussed. However, more time could be spent on the how interactions could be cultivated through the study since you consider social learning a primary component to your theoretical basis for the study.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? The procedure was unclear about when and how data would be collected and

analyzed. Also, it was unclear which data was the focus of the study and which data was support for the results.


Yes blogging is age appropriate although the researcher did not indicate a service for use. This should be considered as part of keeping the students safe.

5. What ethical considerations are included?I wonder how internet security and online etticate will be addressed through the

study. The proposed participants are novice technology users.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?The study could use more references to support the argument through the study.

Additionally, some sources seemed over cited. To find more source, look at how the articles are citing or who is citing the articles you already have. Also, your sentences are very long. This made reading your paper arduous. I frequently had to reread your paper to understand you.


5



Peer Review Conducted by: Wendy StoutResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Monica WoodsDate of Review 1/29/16


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The measurements of learning were listed as if it was a student learning outcome

by a teacher that was being measured.


Yes, the prospectus did discuss several of these things.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? It was clear what data would be collected but not very clear on how the data

would be analyzed or how the participants would have their privacy protected.


The technology was a blog and the participants were the elementary students but who would benefit from the knowledge gained. Would it be to change or keep curriculum the same?

5. What ethical considerations are included?How do you protect the student’s identity as well as internet security issues?

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?I know this is a draft but the paper has several APA errors and is not long enough to meet requirements. You have a lot of long sentences that may be able to be two. You use a lot of words like many that should be eliminated or changed for a number.


6



Peer Review Conducted by: [Nicole Masters]Research Prospectus Draft Author: [Monica Woods]Date of Review [01/29/16]


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The measurements of the learning outcomes are well thought out and therefore, are feasible for the purpose of the study.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?There does not seem to be a discussion of learner control or learner motivation.



Target audience is accessible through researcher’s job. Blogging is an age-appropriate technology for the target audience.

5. What ethical considerations are included?It is important to discuss ethical considerations in this study because the study is dealing with minors. Make sure the study is appropriate for minors, and if it is, make sure it is mentioned in the study.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?Very well-done.


7



Peer Review Conducted by: Monica WoodsResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Samuel GettmanDate of Review 1.28.2016


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.Measurements of learning seemed to be clearly defined. You described the sources of data and it’s collection well.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?Yes. Most elements listed were discussed. Although, peer and social interaction did not seem relevant to the study.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? The procedure did not indicate a length of time for data collection. Problems or issues may result in not establishing an end time.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?Yes. The use of clickers is an age appropriate tool for this sample group.

5. What ethical considerations are included?Research appears to have made reasonable effort to maintain integrity in conducting the research and collecting data.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?The study does not discuss how or when teachers will introduce or orient students in the proper use of the clicker. It could be a concern if there is an assumption that students will have knowledge of use of the assessment tools. Misuse or lack of knowledge could render false results. However, I was able to follow the process and have a clear understanding of the study. Nice job, Samuel!


8



Peer Review Conducted by: [Nicole Masters]Research Prospectus Draft Author: [Samuel Gettman]Date of Review [01/29/2016]


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain. The measurements of the learning outcomes are well thought out. They are feasible given the experimental design.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style? Learner control and attributes don’t seem to be a factor in the study except for the age, gender, and minority group of the learners.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? Even though teachers are going to work together to determine an appropriate length for the assignment, there is still potential that some students may not reach the 70% completion mark for the assignment. Also, not having a defined timeline could cause problems in completing the study.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?Yes. Clickers are an age-appropriate tool for the target audience. The target audience is accessible through the researchers’ work.

5. What ethical considerations are included?Because minors are the subjects and target audience of the study, the researcher needs to make sure that all ethical considerations are considered, including: approval for the ISRB and parental approval for participation.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?

Your knowledge of research is evident. Very well done.


9



Peer Review Conducted by: Wendy StoutResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Samuel GettmanDate of Review 01/29/2016


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The measurements of learning are clearly defined. You described the sources of data and seem to have both quantitative and qualitative data.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?Yes, motivation was a big factor in this prospectus. You talk mostly about how boy’s motivations will be affected. I am sure however there will be some girls in this population how do plan to address them? Do you expect to see a different result?

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? I see difficulties in making sure that the four different teachers have the same experience and time in class with the clickers. Making sure that they are all using the same agenda for the class.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?Yes, the use of clickers is an age appropriate tool for this sample group and I think the technology is not just the clicker itself but the ability to integrate it into PowerPoint or other classroom technology.

5. What ethical considerations are included?You appear to have made reasonable effort to maintain integrity in conducting the research and collecting data but how do you protect the student’s data? Do you need permission from the admiration to collect the data?

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?You have double space after periods in some parts of the paper but not others. To me I seem some of your headings are one level off.


10



Peer Review Conducted by: Samuel GettmanResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Wendy StoutDate of Review 1/27/16


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.Yes, the measurement tool for the experiment were clearly defined and feasible.


Yes the study does discuss a number of these things. I feel the study could expand on motivation for students more explicitly.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? Because of the rapid feedback nature of computers, perhaps you could use

something like clickers for the control group. They would give the same rapid feedback without giving the participants experience with the computer system. Otherwise, the study may be limited because one group is getting immediate and individualized feedback. Of course this is much better.


Yes the audience and technology are age-appropriate.

5. What ethical considerations are included?Care should be taken during data collection to protect anonymity for the students

throughout the study.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?The paper was well written and clear. I have a strong understanding of the

research design and method.


11



Peer Review Conducted by: Monica WoodsResearch Prospectus Draft Author: Wendy StoutDate of Review 1/27/16


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.The measurements for learning were feasible & clearly defined.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?The prospectus discussed several elements listed. You made no mention of age, or learning styles of students.


Computer-based exams may seem difficult for some due to computer experience of the student.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?Yes, computer-based exams are age-appropriate for the targeted audience. The researcher may gain access to target through familiarity and relationship to the facility.

5. What ethical considerations are included?Ethical safe guards ensured to protect participants’ identity.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?The study prospectus was clear and understandable. Nice work, Wendy


12



Peer Review Conducted by: [Nicole Masters]Research Prospectus Draft Author: [Wendy Stout]Date of Review [01/29/2016]


1. Are the measurements of learning outcomes feasible? Explain.Learning outcomes are well-thought out, and the measurement of the learning outcomes if feasible for the purpose of the study.

2. Does the prospectus discuss the locus of learner control, learner motivation, interaction (peer, faculty, social, computer-mediated), or learner attributes, such as age, education level, expectations, and learning style?I didn’t see much discussion about locus of learner control, learner motivation, or learner attributes.

3. What are potential problems, difficulties, or issues in the procedures? Potential problems with the procedure could be the size of the population being studied. If the population is too small, there may be a chance of affecting the significance of the study. Also, there is not a defined timeline for the study. This could help keep study organized and on track during the data collection process.

4. Is the subject matter and the educational technology age-appropriate for the target audience? Can the researcher access the target audience? If yes, how?The subject matter and educational technology is age appropriated for the target audience. Computer-based simulations and examinations are age-appropriate for the target audience of adult leaners.

5. What ethical considerations are included?Ethical considerations mentioned were school approval for use for student demographics.

6. What additional comments do you have for the author that might strengthen the work?Well done.

Documents

UOPX Material - Web viewThe learning outcomes don’t seem feasible because you state that you are going to be giving a test however you’re not asking about ... motivation was a