Peer review of my proposal


This blog post provides a summary of the peer review activity undertaken throughout the development of my Design-Based Research (DBR) Proposal: Implementing Networked and Global Learning tools and principles to transform organisational learning. The peer review process was intended as a way to improve my practice as a student of the EDU8117 Networked and Global Learning (NGL) course and in my role as a professional educator in an Australian Government organisation. In conducting my process of review, I drew on the design-based research theory proposed by Herrington, McKenney, Reeves and Oliver (2007).

Herrington et al (2007) encourage individuals to seek feedback from peers throughout the development of a research project, as a means to identify and address theoretical problems, guide and test proposals and improve the overall standard of academic work.

The process of generating peer review
My process of generating peer review involved developing a draft proposal, and providing access to this using Google Docs. I provided a link to the document on my blog, which was created as part of the NLG course, and invited peers from the course to edit and add comments to my draft proposal – a feature which is available with Google Docs.

My draft proposal was around 50% complete when shared on my blog and feedback was sought five days before the due date of the final assignment. I sought feedback at this stage deliberately, in order to identify any significant problems or gaps in my writing, as early as possible, so that they could be adequately addressed in the final draft of the document (Herrington et al, 2007).

I also selected my course blog, as the most appropriate medium to gather feedback, as it was easily accessible by other members of the NGL course – all higher education students and education professionals – who could provide informed comment on my work (Herrington et al, 2007).

Response to peer review
The feedback I received from my peers related to both the theoretical and technical aspects of my proposal and can be viewed as comments on my blog post or via Google Docs here. Comments relating to the technical side of my writing included suggestions on how to improve my referencing and sentence and essay structure, in line with the university academic guidelines and the assignment criteria.

Other feedback identified gaps in my thinking and encouraged greater exploration of the tools and principles of networked and global learning in my proposal. Another suggestion was to consider further the context of my organisation and the demographics of the students, in order to better inform an intervention of an appropriate learning activity.

The feedback received was considered at length and appropriate changes were made to my proposal to create a more well-rounded and polished finished product. The completed assignment is now available on my blog.

Future considerations for peer review
My future proposals could benefit from a greater level of peer review, especially at different stages of the proposal development from the initial outline to final draft, to improve the depth of discussion and quality of the work. Feedback or further consultation and collaboration from a broader range of professionals in the field of education, or experts in NGL or organisational learning, could also add further value to any design-based research proposals developed in the future.


Herrington, J., McKenney, S., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2007). Design-based research and doctoral students: Guidelines for preparing a dissertation proposal. Ed Media. Retrieved November 8, 2014 from


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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