GoogleTranslate Service


PLE2010 – reflections on the review process

April 25th, 2010 by Graham Attwell

A quick update in my series of posts on our experiences in organising the PLE2010 conference. We received 82 proposals for the conference – far more than we had expected. The strong response, I suspect, was due to three reasons: the interest in PLEs in the Technology Enhanced Learning community, the attraction of Barcelona as a venue and our success in using applications like Twitter for virally publicising the conference.

Having said that – in terms of format in seems to me that some of the submissions as full conference papers would have been better made under other formats. However, present university funding requirements demand full papers and inhibit applications for work in progress or developing ideas in more appropriate formats.

For the last two weeks I have been organising the review process. We promised that each submission would be blind reviewed by at least two reviewers. For this we are reliant on the freely given time and energy of our Academic Committee. And whilst reviewing can be a learning process in itself it is time consuming.

Submissions have been managed through th open source Easychair system, hosted by the University of Manchester. The system is powerful, but the interfaces are far from transparent and the help somewhat minimalist! I have struggled to get the settings in the system right and some functions seem buggy – for instance the function to show missing reviews seems not to be working.

Two lessons for the future seem immediately apparent. Firstly, we set the length of abstracts as a maximum of 350 words. Many of the reviewers have commented that this is too short to judge the quality of the submission.

Secondly is the fraught issue of criteria for the reviews. We produced detailed guidelines for submissions based on the Creative Commons licensed Alt-C guidelines.

The criteria were:

  • Relevance to the themes of the conference although this does not exclude other high quality proposals.
  • Contribution to scholarship and research into the use of PLEs for learning.
  • Reference to the characteristics and needs of learners.
  • Contribution to the development of learning technology policy or theory in education.
  • Links that are made between theory, evidence and practice.
  • Appropriate reflection and evaluation.
  • Clarity and coherence.
  • Usefulness to conference participants.

However, when I sent out the papers for review, whilst I provided a link to those guidelines, I failed to copy them into the text of the emails asking for reviews. In retrospect, I should have attempted to produce a review template in EasyChair incorporating the guidelines.

Even with such explicit guidelines, there is considerable room for different interpretation by reviewers. I am not sure that in our community we have a common understanding of what might be relevant to the themes of the conference or a contribution to scholarship and research into the use of PLEs for learning. I suspect this is the same for many conferences: however, the issue may be more problematic in an emergent area of education and technology practice.

We also set a scale for scoring proposals:

  • 3 – strong accept
  • 2 – accept
  • 1- weak accept
  • 0 – borderline
  • -1 – week reject
  • -2 – reject
  • – 3 – reject

In addition we asked reviewers to state their degree of confidence in their review ranging from 4, expert, to 0, null.

In over half the cases where we have received two reviews, the variation between the reviewers is no more that 1. But there are also a number of reviews with significant variation. This suggest significant differences in understandings by reviewers of the criteria – or the meaning of the criteria. it could also just be that different reviewers have different standards.

In any case, we will organise a further review procedure for those submissions where there are significant differences. But I wonder if the scoring process is the best approach. To have no scoring seems to be a way fo avoiding the issue. I wonder if we should have scoring for each criteria, although this would make the review process even more complicated.

I would welcome any comments on this. Whilst too late for this conference, as a community we are reliant on peer review as a quality process and collective learning and reflection may be a way of improving our work.

Please follow and like us:

3 Responses to “PLE2010 – reflections on the review process”

  1. A couple of thoughts, as someone who did submit reviews (I know you’ve touched on some of this; I’m just offering comments, as requested).

    – the stated criteria, as listed in the post above, are actually longer than many of the abstract submissions. As such, the criteria were overkill for what was actually being evaluated.

    – the criteria do not reflect academic merit. They are more like a check-off list that a a non-skilled intake worker could complete. The purpose of having academics do the review is that the academics can evaluate the work on its own merit, not against a check-off list.

    – the criteria reflect a specific theoretical perspective on the subject matter which is at odds with the subject matter. They reflect an instructivist perspective, and a theory-based (universalists, abstractivist) perspective. Personal learning environments are exactly the opposite of that.

    In other words, it is not appropriate to ask academic reviewers to bring their expertise the material, and to then neuter that expertise with overly perspective statement of criteria.

  2. Graham Attwell says:

    Thanks Stephen. I agree with your comments but still worry about how we get agreed meanings and standards for reviewers. Maybe we should be facilitating some kind of ongoing discussions between reviewers as part of the process?

Tweetbacks/Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] were used by some reviewers. Others disagreed with this approach. Stephen Downes, commenting on my last blog post about the conference, […]

  • Search Pontydysgu.org

    Social Media




    News Bites

    Cyborg patented?

    Forbes reports that Microsoft has obtained a patent for a “conversational chatbot of a specific person” created from images, recordings, participation in social networks, emails, letters, etc., coupled with the possible generation of a 2D or 3D model of the person.

    Please follow and like us:


    Racial bias in algorithms

    From the UK Open Data Institute’s Week in Data newsletter

    This week, Twitter apologised for racial bias within its image-cropping algorithm. The feature is designed to automatically crop images to highlight focal points – including faces. But, Twitter users discovered that, in practice, white faces were focused on, and black faces were cropped out. And, Twitter isn’t the only platform struggling with its algorithm – YouTube has also announced plans to bring back higher levels of human moderation for removing content, after its AI-centred approach resulted in over-censorship, with videos being removed at far higher rates than with human moderators.

    Please follow and like us:


    Gap between rich and poor university students widest for 12 years

    Via The Canary.

    The gap between poor students and their more affluent peers attending university has widened to its largest point for 12 years, according to data published by the Department for Education (DfE).

    Better-off pupils are significantly more likely to go to university than their more disadvantaged peers. And the gap between the two groups – 18.8 percentage points – is the widest it’s been since 2006/07.

    The latest statistics show that 26.3% of pupils eligible for FSMs went on to university in 2018/19, compared with 45.1% of those who did not receive free meals. Only 12.7% of white British males who were eligible for FSMs went to university by the age of 19. The progression rate has fallen slightly for the first time since 2011/12, according to the DfE analysis.

    Please follow and like us:


    Quality Training

    From Raconteur. A recent report by global learning consultancy Kineo examined the learning intentions of 8,000 employees across 13 different industries. It found a huge gap between the quality of training offered and the needs of employees. Of those surveyed, 85 per cent said they , with only 16 per cent of employees finding the learning programmes offered by their employers effective.

    Please follow and like us:


    Other Pontydysgu Spaces

    • Pontydysgu on the Web

      pbwiki
      Our Wikispace for teaching and learning
      Sounds of the Bazaar Radio LIVE
      Join our Sounds of the Bazaar Facebook goup. Just click on the logo above.

      We will be at Online Educa Berlin 2015. See the info above. The stream URL to play in your application is Stream URL or go to our new stream webpage here SoB Stream Page.

      Please follow and like us:
  • Twitter

    Great article by @katrinemarcal on gender and tech - “Gender answers the riddle of why it took 5,000 years for us to put wheels on suitcases. “ theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/…

    About 13 hours ago from Graham Attwell's Twitter via Twitter for Mac

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Meta

  • Categories