PEER REVIEW DURING THE 'PECHA KUCHA' AND OTHER PROJECT PRESENTATIONS
The propose of a Peer review is to improve the quality of (usually written) work by subjecting the work to the critical look of a number of peers, usually colleagues of the author.
This review is based on the suspicion that different individuals will notice different errors, increasing the probability that an error or shortcoming of the author will be detected and corrected. In many scientific disciplines, peer review is the only form of quality assurance, as regular editors usually lack the knowledge and skills to assess a publication.
That's what we will do in the project presentations. In addition to the teacher's assessment, students study the work of fellow students critically and provide constructive criticism. The aim is to help each other further, but also to learn how to handle another. And yes, sometimes you also learn from another's mistakes and give insight into your own method. Often a peer review is anonymous but we do not do that in this case so that you can ask and discuss each other later.
So your response is a constructive addition to the teachers' assessment.
In the peer review you answer the following questions:
Of course, it is important not to answer the questions with yes or no, but to substantiate substantively so that the writer or the person presenting 'learns' something about it. And of course: treat the work and commitment of your colleague with respect. The aim is both to get better.
It is therefore not a question of whether or not you will find a cool project, but you will keep an eye on the formal lines that help to get the plan to a higher level and to succeed.
Elke Van Damme & Erik van Drunen
This review is based on the suspicion that different individuals will notice different errors, increasing the probability that an error or shortcoming of the author will be detected and corrected. In many scientific disciplines, peer review is the only form of quality assurance, as regular editors usually lack the knowledge and skills to assess a publication.
That's what we will do in the project presentations. In addition to the teacher's assessment, students study the work of fellow students critically and provide constructive criticism. The aim is to help each other further, but also to learn how to handle another. And yes, sometimes you also learn from another's mistakes and give insight into your own method. Often a peer review is anonymous but we do not do that in this case so that you can ask and discuss each other later.
So your response is a constructive addition to the teachers' assessment.
In the peer review you answer the following questions:
- Does the paper / presentation meet the formal criteria of the assignment?
- Clearly, the purpose, design and approach of the project? Where could that be better?
- Does the presentation have a clear format? What could be better?
- Does the planned route give the creator and the audience new insights or competencies? If so, how and what?
- Make a suggestion to improve the presentation.
Of course, it is important not to answer the questions with yes or no, but to substantiate substantively so that the writer or the person presenting 'learns' something about it. And of course: treat the work and commitment of your colleague with respect. The aim is both to get better.
It is therefore not a question of whether or not you will find a cool project, but you will keep an eye on the formal lines that help to get the plan to a higher level and to succeed.
Elke Van Damme & Erik van Drunen