The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT)

Michael A Peters,Susanne Brighouse,Marek Tesar,Sean Sturm,Liz Jackson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1846519

2020-12-08

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Abstract:Open Peer Review: Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) Michael A. Peters, Beijing Normal University, PR China

education & educational research

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Exploring the philosophy and practice of collective writing

Michael A. Peters,Marek Tesar,Liz Jackson,Tina Besley,Petar Jandrić,Sonja Arndt,Sean Sturm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1854731

2021-01-06

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Abstract:We are about to publish in the Routledge Editor's Choice series a collection called The Philosophy, Methodology and Pedagogy of Collective Writing. This collection of collections represents the development of the philosophy, methodology and pedagogy of collective writing as it informs members of the Editors' Collective (EC) who also edit, write, review and contribute to Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) and also now to PESA Agora (<a class="ext-link" href="https://pesaagora.com/">https://pesaagora.com/</a>, Editor: Tina Besley) and Access (<a class="ext-link" href="https://pesaagora.com/access-journal/">https://pesaagora.com/access-journal/</a>, Editor: Nina Hood), two 'journals' recently developed by PESA members of EC. In my thinking as the editor of EPAT for over twenty years, I have been concerned with the narrowness of the status of the academic article and the conventions that tightly structure it as a product of industrial culture. Not much has changed in the form of the academic article in the last twenty-five years. If anything, the conventions have hardened and solidified. I have been interested in experimenting with the journal and the academic article, which in the humanities and social sciences still tends to emulate to old model of the lonely scholar operating on their own – an individual author responsible for 'research' who publishes an article of six to seven thousand words with abstract, keywords, introduction, analysis or argument, often methodology, results and conclusion. Copyright is generally signed over to a publisher, and the article, once published after blind peer review, ends up in a journal that then becomes the basis for tenure or promotion in a 'publish or perish' culture. It's a system that drains every last drop of creativity from academic writing forced to focus on the phenomenon of pure information or data. After the digitisation of publishing that occurred in the 1990s academic journals began to offer new possibilities for publishing formats, different distributive forms of collaboration, new multiple forms of collective authorship and also new forms of open review.

education & educational research
Ten considerations for open peer review

Birgit Schmidt,Tony Ross-Hellauer,Xenia van Edig,Elizabeth C Moylan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1

2018-06-29

Abstract:Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community.
A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Jonathan P Tennant,Jonathan M Dugan,Daniel Graziotin,Damien C Jacques,François Waldner,Daniel Mietchen,Yehia Elkhatib,Lauren B Collister,Christina K Pikas,Tom Crick,Paola Masuzzo,Anthony Caravaggi,Devin R Berg,Kyle E Niemeyer,Tony Ross-Hellauer,Sara Mannheimer,Lillian Rigling,Daniel S Katz,Bastian Greshake Tzovaras,Josmel Pacheco-Mendoza,Nazeefa Fatima,Marta Poblet,Marios Isaakidis,Dasapta Erwin Irawan,Sébastien Renaut,Christopher R Madan,Lisa Matthias,Jesper Nørgaard Kjær,Daniel Paul O'Donnell,Cameron Neylon,Sarah Kearns,Manojkumar Selvaraju,Julien Colomb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3

2017-07-20

Abstract:Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments.
Open Access and Peer Review

Cheol-Heui Yun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.69528/jkmla.2023.50.1_2.10

2023-12-01

Abstract:Open access is a subfield of open science that began on December 1, 2001 with the Budapest Open Access Initiative and aims to create a virtuous loop in the academic ecosystem. Open access is distinguished by the fact that information producers become users, and users (researchers) become producers again. Authors of scholarly article do not seek profit from publishing, but research results are extensively disseminated, and research accomplishments are immediately shared and generally recognized. Open access can help tackle three types of problems: economic obstacles, legal barriers, and technical barriers. The growing burden of paper publication fees, especially article processing charge, on individual researchers is a representative problem in the academic ecosystem that comes along with open access. One of the primary concerns with open access is the expert review system, which is thought to have a significant impact on the future of the academic journal ecosystem as well as the type of open access. In addition to the usual closed expert review methods used by many academic publications, such as single-blind review, double- blind review, and triple-blind review, expert review also includes open expert review and transparent expert review. The planned improvements in open access and expert review are expected to have a considerable influence on the academic ecosystem.
Open Science in Education Sciences

Wilhelmina van Dijk,Christopher Schatschneider,Sara A Hart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420945267

Abstract:The Open Science movement has gained considerable traction in the last decade. The Open Science movement tries to increase trust in research results and open the access to all elements of a research project to the public. Central to these goals, Open Science has promoted five critical tenets: Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access. All Open Science elements can be thought of as extensions to the traditional way of achieving openness in science, which has been scientific publication of research outcomes in journals or books. Open Science in education sciences, however, has the potential to be much more than a safeguard against questionable research. Open Science in education science provides opportunities to (a) increase the transparency and therefore replicability of research and (b) develop and answer research questions about individuals with learning disabilities and learning difficulties that were previously impossible to answer due to complexities in data analysis methods. We will provide overviews of the main tenets of Open Science (i.e., Open Data, Open Analysis, Open Materials, Preregistration, and Open Access), show how they are in line with grant funding agencies' expectations for rigorous research processes, and present resources on best practices for each of the tenets.
Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

Madeleine Pownall,Flávio Azevedo,Laura M. König,Hannah R. Slack,Thomas Rhys Evans,Zoe Flack,Sandra Grinschgl,Mahmoud M. Elsherif,Katie A. Gilligan-Lee,Catia M. F. de Oliveira,Biljana Gjoneska,Tamara Kalandadze,Katherine Button,Sarah Ashcroft-Jones,Jenny Terry,Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir,Filip Děchtěrenko,Shilaan Alzahawi,Bradley J. Baker,Merle-Marie Pittelkow,Lydia Riedl,Kathleen Schmidt,Charlotte R. Pennington,John J. Shaw,Timo Lüke,Matthew C. Makel,Helena Hartmann,Mirela Zaneva,Daniel Walker,Steven Verheyen,Daniel Cox,Jennifer Mattschey,Tom Gallagher-Mitchell,Peter Branney,Yanna Weisberg,Kamil Izydorczak,Ali H. Al-Hoorie,Ann-Marie Creaven,Suzanne L. K. Stewart,Kai Krautter,Karen Matvienko-Sikar,Samuel J. Westwood,Patrícia Arriaga,Meng Liu,Myriam A. Baum,Tobias Wingen,Robert M. Ross,Aoife O'Mahony,Agata Bochynska,Michelle Jamieson,Myrthe Vel Tromp,Siu Kit Yeung,Martin R. Vasilev,Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe,Leticia Micheli,Markus Konkol,David Moreau,James E. Bartlett,Kait Clark,Gwen Brekelmans,Theofilos Gkinopoulos,Samantha L. Tyler,Jan Philipp Röer,Zlatomira G. Ilchovska,Christopher R. Madan,Olly Robertson,Bethan J. Iley,Samuel Guay,Martina Sladekova,Shanu Sadhwani,FORRT

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221255

IF: 3.5

2023-05-19

Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship.

multidisciplinary sciences
Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

Michael Wood

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202012.0612.v2

2021-08-30

Abstract:This article challenges the assumption that journals and peer review are essential for developing, evaluating and disseminating scientific and other academic knowledge. It suggests a more flexible ecosystem, and examines some of the possibilities this might facilitate. The market for academic outputs should be opened up by encouraging the separation of the dissemination service from the evaluation service. Publishing research in subject-specific journals encourages compartmentalising research into rigid categories. The dissemination of knowledge would be better served by an open access, web-based repository system encompassing all disciplines. There would then be a role for organisations to assess the items in this repository to help users find relevant, high-quality work. There could be a variety of such organisations which could enable reviews from peers to be supplemented with evaluation by non-peers from a variety of different perspectives: user reviews, statistical reviews, reviews from the perspective of different disciplines, and so on. This should reduce the inevitably conservative influence of relying on two or three peers, and make the evaluation system more critical, multi-dimensional and responsive to the requirements of different audience groups, changing circumstances, and new ideas. Non-peer review might make it easier to challenge dominant paradigms, and expanding the potential audience beyond a narrow group of peers might encourage the criterion of simplicity to be taken more seriously - which is essential if human knowledge is to continue to progress.
Elements of Open Education: An Invitation to Future Research

Olaf Zawacki-Richter,Dianne Conrad,Aras Bozkurt,Cengiz Hakan Aydin,Svenja Bedenlier,Insung Jung,Joachim Stöter,George Veletsianos,Lisa Marie Blaschke,Melissa Bond,Andrea Broens,Elisa Bruhn,Carina Dolch,Marco Kalz,Yasar Kondakci,Victoria Marin,Kerstin Mayrberger,Wolfgang Müskens,Som Naidu,Adnan Qayyum,Jennifer Roberts,Albert Sangrà,Frank Senyo Loglo,Patricia J. Slagter van Tryon,Junhong Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4659

2020-03-04

The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning

Abstract:This paper explores elements of open education within the context of higher education. After an introduction to the origins of open education and its theoretical foundations, the topics of open and distance learning, international education issues in open education, open educational practices and scholarship, open educational resources, MOOCs, prior learning accreditation and recognition, and learner characteristics are considered, following the framework of macro, meso, and micro levels of research in open and distance learning. Implications for future research at the macro, meso, and micro levels are then provided.
Philosophy of Education in a New Key: East Asia

Ruyu Hung,Peng Zhengmei,Morimichi Kato,Tadashi Nishihira,Mika Okabe,Xu Di,Duck-Joo Kwak,Keumjoong Hwang,Youngkun Tschong,Cheng-His Chien,Michael A. Peters,Marek Tesar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1772028

2020-05-28

Educational Philosophy and Theory

Abstract:Ruyu HungNational Chiayi University, TaiwanThis is a collective writing experiment of PESA members, orchestrating the Philosophy of Education in a New Key regarding East Asia. In 2016 the pioneering article 'Towards a philosophy of academic publishing' (Peters et al., 2016) was published. It sheds a new light on collective writing that can make great contribution to the academia by creating 'new knowledge ecologies and the global ecosystem of scholarly communication'. By the experiment of collective writing, novel and interesting works are produced, including: 'Antipodean Theory for Educational Research' (Stewart et al., 2017), 'Ten theses on the shift from (Static) Text to (Moving) Image' (Peters et al., 2018a), 'Is Peer Review in Academic Publishing still working?' (Jackson et al., 2018), and 'Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence' (Peters et al., 2019). In the year of 2020, the project of the collective writing on the theme 'Philosophy of education in a new key' (Peters, 2020) was launched to explore possibilities of thinking philosophy of education through collective efforts and intelligence. Its leading tone 'Harmonic Cadence' (Peters, 2020) means that the new field for philosophy of education in the times of the post-truth world (Peters et al., 2018b) is open for more participation and partaking. 'The Philosophy of Education in a New Key: East Asia', the collectively written piece by East Asian scholars, aims to answer to the call of the 'Harmonic Cadence' by introducing East Asian sagacity.

education & educational research
Trends in Practical Student Peer-review

Helen C. Purchase,John Hamer

2024-01-02

Abstract:While much of the literature on student peer-review focusses on the success (or otherwise) of individual activities in specific classes (often implemented as part of scholarly research projects) there is little by way of published data giving an overview of the range and variety of such activities as used in practice. As the creators, administrators and maintainers of the Aropa Peer review tool, we have unique access to meta-information about peer-review assessments conducted in classes in institutions across the world, together with the variety of class sizes, subjects, rubric design etc. We reported on some of the key assessment configuration data in a 2018 publication covering a period of eight years; here we provide an update on this data, five years later, with particular comment on trends, academic discipline coverage and the possible effect of online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Digital Libraries
Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review

Adam Craig,Christina Lee,Nithyaa Bala,Carl Taswell,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48085/i5b147d9d

2022-06-30

Brainiacs Journal of Brain Imaging And Computing Sciences

Abstract:Scientists who engage in science and the scientific endeavor should seek truth with conviction of morals and commitment to ethics. While the number of publications continues to increase, the number of retractions has increased at a faster rate. Journals publish fraudulent research papers despite claims of peer review and adherence to publishing ethics. Nevertheless, appropriate ethical peer review will remain a gatekeeper when selecting research manuscripts in scholarly publishing and approving research applications for grant funding. However, this peer review must become more open, fair, transparent, equitable, and just with new recommendations and guidelines for reproducible and accountable reviews that support and promote fair citation and citational justice. We should engineer this new peer-review process with modern informatics technology and information science to provide and defend better safeguards for truth and integrity, to clarify and maintain the provenance of information and ideas, and to rebuild and restore trust in scholarly research institutions. Indeed, this new approach will be necessary in the current post-truth era to counter the ease and speed with which mis-information, dis-information, anti-information, caco-information, and mal-information spread through the internet, web, news, and social media. The most important question for application of new peer-review methods to these information wars should be ‘Who does what when?’ in support of reproducible and accountable reviews. Who refers to the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers as participants in the review process. What refers to disclosure of the participants' identities, the material content of author manuscripts and reviewer commentaries, and other communications between authors and reviewers. When refers to tracking the sequential points in time for which disclosure of whose identity, which content, and which communication at which step of the peer-review process for which audience of readers and reviewers. We believe that quality peer review, and peer review of peer review, must be motivated and maintained by elevating their status and prestige to an art and a science. Both peer review itself and peer review analyses of peer reviews should be incentivised by publishing peer reviews as citable references separately from the research report reviewed while crossreferenced and crosslinked to the report reviewed.
The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

John A. Drozdz,Michael R. Ladomery

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12054

2024-06-17

British Journal of Biomedical Science

Abstract:The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

medical laboratory technology
Students' Engagement in Anonymous Peer Review: Using the Open-Source Sakai Platform

Fazlyn Petersen,Bradley Groenewald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.09955

2021-08-23

Abstract:There is a need to provide quality education without discrimination or prejudice to all students. However, there are challenges in implementing quality education in large classes, especially during remote learning. Literature indicates that providing lecturer feedback can become a tedious task, especially in large classes. Literature states that involving students in the peer review process can improve the quality of their submissions. This research used a case study and thematic analysis. Qualitative data were collected from 179 third-year Information Systems students who used the Opensource Sakai Platform. Students reviewed another student's report, without knowing their identity. The research used self-determination theory as a theoretical basis. The achievement of perceived autonomy is supported as an anonymous peer review helped students to empower themselves. Perceived competence was also achieved as the anonymous peer review improved the quality of work submitted and the development of workplace skills. Perceived relatedness is supported as students indicated that the anonymous peer review allowed them to learn from their peers. It also improved their understanding and the ability to see errors in their work. Despite the negative aspects identified using the Sakai platform, it may provide a viable alternative for providing feedback remotely, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Computers and Society
The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower

Ying Liu,Kaiqi Yang,Yue Liu,Michael G. B. Drew

2023-09-19

Abstract:This essay delves into the ethical dilemmas encountered within the academic peer review process and investigates the prevailing deficiencies in this system. It highlights how established scholars often adhere to mainstream theories not out of genuine belief, but to safeguard their own reputations. This practice perpetuates intellectual conformity, fuels confirmation bias, and stifles dissenting voices. Furthermore, as the number of incorrect papers published by influential scientists increases, it inadvertently encourages more researchers to follow suit, tacitly endorsing incorrect viewpoints. By examining historical instances of suppressed ideas later proven valuable, this essay calls for a reevaluation of academia's commitment to genuine innovation and progress which is usually achieved by applications of fundamental principles in from textbooks.

Physics and Society
Peer-supported Teaching Practice: Embodying a Relational, Practice-Led Approach to Enhancing Educator Wellbeing and Practice

Lauren Hansen,Tim Chambers,Danielle Hamilton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.2780

2023-12-11

Student Success

Abstract:Peer review of teaching (PRT) programs have the capacity to address the practice imperative of evaluating and enhancing teaching practice, and the ethical imperative of safeguarding and promoting educator wellbeing, which is intrinsically linked to student wellbeing. This article outlines the practice-led development of an institution-wide, embedded and contextualised PRT program, which we conceptualise as Peer-supported Teaching Practice (PTP). In contrast to traditional PRT, our working framework is built from the ground up and situates the educator as the driver of a relational peer-review process informed by psychological wellbeing literature. By incorporating peer reflection as a core function of the model, we seek to ensure all staff can access growth-fostering peer relationships regardless of their role, discipline or existing social capital. Rather than position academic developers as the facilitators of these conversations, we argue that peers are best equipped to support each other to explore, interrogate and mutually develop the embodied 'self-in-practice'.
Open science practices in higher education: Discussion of survey results from research and teaching staff in Germany

Tamara Heck,Isabella Peters,Athanasios Mazarakis,Ansgar Scherp,Ina Blümel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-190272

2020-09-25

Education for Information

Abstract:Aspects of open science and scholarly practices are often discussed with a focus on research and research dissemination processes. There is currently less discussion on open science and its influence on learning and teaching in higher education, and reversely. This paper discusses open science in relation to educational practices and resources and reports on a study to investigate current educational practices from the perspective of open science. We argue that offering students opportunities via open educational practices raises their awareness of future open science goals and teaches them the skills needed to reach those goals. We present online survey results from 210 participants with teaching responsibility at higher education institutions in Germany. While some of them try to establish more open learning and teaching settings, most respondents apply rather traditional ways of learning and teaching. 60% do not use open educational resources – many have not even heard of them – nor do they make their courses open for an online audience. Participants’ priority lies in resource accuracy and quality and we still see a gap between the benefit of open practices and their practicability and applicability. The paper contributes to the general discussion of open practices in higher education by looking at open science practices and their adaptation to the learning and teaching environment. It formulates recommendations for improvements of open practice support and infrastructure.

English Else
Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice

Chunxian Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811426248

IF: 3.401

2012-01-01

Language Teaching Research

Abstract:This ethnographic study attempts to find, reveal and understand the learning possibilities, from the social learning perspective, in the process of peer feedback activity in a College English classroom for non-English majors in China. The study reveals the nature of Exploratory Practice (EP), and the investigation is guided by EP principles, aiming at exploring the viability of the practice in this specific teaching and learning context. Through classroom observation, discourse analysis, discussion, interviews and drafts of students’ writing, the study finds five group cooperative patterns, represented by the five patterns of discursive interaction: collaborative, expert–novice, dominant–dominant, dominant–passive and passive–passive. Wherein the former two patterns witness the obvious reciprocal nature, the latter three seem not to. The subsequent classroom discussion reveals a general conformability of the teacher and students’ understanding of the virtues and problems of the activity, and the broadening of the teacher’s understanding in this social process. Meanwhile through discussion and interview, the practitioners reached a consensus that the teacher’s tutoring is necessary to turn the problems into possible learning opportunities where the learners act as the learning agents. The study also discussed the possible ways of the teacher’s tutoring in the activity in a specific context.

education & educational research,linguistics
Exploring Peer Review in the Computer Science Classroom

Scott Turner,Manuel A. Perez-Quinones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0907.3456

2009-07-20

Computers and Society

Abstract:In computer science, students could benefit from more opportunities to learn important, high-level concepts and to improve their learning skills. Peer review is one method to encourage this by providing students with the opportunity to evaluate other people's work and to receive feedback on their own projects. This allows for rich learning experience but it is not immediately obvious how to create a programming project review that will improve the students' conceptual understanding, require higher level thinking, and be engaging. The current literature does not typically address differences between review implementations or provide reasons for design decisions. This work explored how two different types of reviews affected the students' learning of concepts, high-level thinking, and engagement. There were indications that the type of review affected how well students addressed the concept they were reviewing and the comments' length. This shows that the review's type may affect student engagement and conceptual learning. There were also differences in how they reviewed the concepts of Abstraction, Decomposition, and Encapsulation, suggesting that the concepts are being learned in different ways. Both of these results have an impact on the use of peer review computer science but need further investigation.
Stimulating music educator worldview change through a pedagogy of provocation, critical thinking and peer-review

James Henry Byrne Humberstone,Catherine Zhao,Danny Liu,Mary Elizabeth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02557614221149223

2023-02-03

International Journal of Music Education

Abstract:International Journal of Music Education, Ahead of Print. Contemporary literature suggests that music education is stuck in a cycle of cultural reproduction in which music teachers and curriculum writers value Western art music more than culturally-diverse and modern, technology-saturated musics, and train the next generation to hold similar views. A MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) was developed to challenge music teachers' worldviews and to develop critical thinking about the field. In this mixed-methods study, we analysed 18 months of qualitative and quantitative data provided by the more than 1,600 course participants in response to paedagogical 'provocations' to assess whether it was successful in prompting critical thinking and worldview change. We used three methods to interrogate three distinct datasets: basic content analysis of participants' publicly written reflections, statistical analysis of peer marking and context-network maps of peer comments. Between-methods triangulation crystallised our findings. We find that through required peer-review of public postings, an online community of practice formed, that it encouraged teachers to engage deeply with new ideas, and engage in Critical Thinking. We find that those who had a disposition towards critical thinking in the early assessments responded most positively to the pedagogy of provocation and were consistently prepared to question their own worldview and practice.

education & educational research
Adding value to the learning process by online peer review activities: towards the elaboration of a methodology to promote critical thinking in future engineers

Caroline Dominguez,Maria M. Nascimento,Rita Payan-Carreira,Gonçalo Cruz,Helena Silva,José Lopes,Maria da Felicidade A. Morais,Eva Morais

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.987649

2014-12-08

European Journal of Engineering Education

Abstract:Considering the results of research on the benefits and difficulties of peer review, this paper describes how teaching faculty, interested in endorsing the acquisition of communication and critical thinking (CT) skills among engineering students, has been implementing a learning methodology throughout online peer review activities. While introducing a new methodology, it is important to weight the advantages found and the conditions that might have restrained the activity outcomes, thereby modulating its overall efficiency. Our results show that several factors are decisive for the success of the methodology: the use of specific and detailed orientation guidelines for CT skills, the students’ training on how to deliver a meaningful feedback, the opportunity to counter-argument, the selection of good assignments’ examples, and the constant teacher's monitoring of the activity. Results also tackle other aspects of the methodology such as the thinking skills evaluation tools (grades and tests) that most suit our reality. An improved methodology is proposed taking in account the encountered limitations, thus offering the possibility to other interested institutions to use/test and/or improve it.

The open peer review experiment in Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT)

Exploring the philosophy and practice of collective writing

Ten considerations for open peer review

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Open Access and Peer Review

Open Science in Education Sciences

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

Beyond Journals and Peer Review: Towards a More Flexible Ecosystem for Scholarly Communication

Elements of Open Education: An Invitation to Future Research

Philosophy of Education in a New Key: East Asia

Trends in Practical Student Peer-review

Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future

Students' Engagement in Anonymous Peer Review: Using the Open-Source Sakai Platform

The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower

Peer-supported Teaching Practice: Embodying a Relational, Practice-Led Approach to Enhancing Educator Wellbeing and Practice

Open science practices in higher education: Discussion of survey results from research and teaching staff in Germany

Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice

Exploring Peer Review in the Computer Science Classroom

Stimulating music educator worldview change through a pedagogy of provocation, critical thinking and peer-review

Adding value to the learning process by online peer review activities: towards the elaboration of a methodology to promote critical thinking in future engineers