As part of a peer review process, we were asked to review blogs for two other students. Here are my review documents.
Further, we were asked to reflect on our own blogs based on the reviews of our peers. The reviews I received are below, followed by my personal reflection on this process.
Reflecting on feedback received from peers, I have adjusted some text and added some graphics to my blog. I agree that spelling and grammar, and the addition of images and other media increases the user experience when viewing the blog.
Reviewers commented that weekly tasks were not included in the blog. I believe each weekly topic and associated task was the basis for a weekly reflection on issues surrounding the topic or questions raised for consideration and not necessarily required to be included. So, in this respect, although I have added links to the weekly tasks, I have not adjusted the content of the weekly reflection.
I received a comment that I was well over the word limit. Although I have used more than 200 words in some blog posts, I have tried to remain within a 10% leeway. It is possible that references were included in the word count. Therefore, I have not made adjustments to my posts as I believe that I remain within the recommended guidelines.
In providing feedback for others, it is interesting to note the differing approaches of other students. Consideration of changing my approach crossed my mind, but on viewing the blogs of additional peers, I chose to leave my posts unchanged in this respect.
Skeptical Raptor’s Blog (2013, October 6). Peer_review [image]. Retrieved from http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/proliferation-fake-peer-review-journals/