As proposed in my previous reflection on live-tweeting, I began interacting (following, retweeting, liking) with more friends and paying more attention to online discussions on Twitter in this second phase of weekly screenings. However, it was not until week 9 that I could pre-write tweets based on background research of films.Continue reading BCM325 Reflection 2: Swimming in the Flood of tweets
Throughout the Future Cultures (BCM325) subject, I have often questioned myself about the purpose of writing reflections on my role as a feedback producer of my peers’ presentations. While feedback receipt generates a critical self-reflection (Nicol et al. 2014: 102), which plays a cardinal role in the higher education independent learning environment (Nicol et al. 2014: 113), feedback provision appears to hold little reflective values. I used to ponder that feedback provision was a non-reciprocal process, which only benefited my peers’ (the receivers) performances and somehow, my tutor’s (the main feedback producer) workload share. Hence, I found commenting on my classmates’ projects time-consuming.
However, my perspective changed in this second round of peer-commenting on Oliva’s, Jessica’s and Susie’s beta presentations of digital artefacts (DA). By employing dual roles as a reader and a researcher, I felt that I could suggest further research directions, enrich my friends’ justifications for method usage and concept development, and improve their DA’s utility in turn. Compared to the previous commenting round, this time, I eschew echoing already preexisting feedback by not reading the beta posts’ comment sections beforehand.Continue reading Peer-Review: A Vicarious (Mutual) Learning Process in the Role of a Feedback Provider