Review and Analysis of Peer Logs

Feedback on Peer Reflection

The purpose of this document is to categorically look at and review the peer’s logs which have been made in the duration of the teaching of three lessons, namely ‘team work’, ‘communication’ and ‘referencing’.

Log 1: Team Work

1. Some of the strengths in the log were that the writer very succinctly summarised the contents of the lesson and noted the significance of independent thinking exercised with respect to understanding theory. Second, the writer bulleted the major takeaways of the lesson for easier understanding. Lastly, the writer related to the content and reflected on their own shortcomings effectively, thus internalising the lesson objectives.

2. The content of the log was good, however the in-text citation that was used did not need to mention the page number for Belbin’s (2010) work. The same was not done for Tucker’s (1965) work, however. The writer made some common grammatical mistakes, which could have been remedied with some proof-reading.

3. The log met the first four questions that needed to be answered very well, however, there was some ambiguity regarding the concrete steps that the writer need to take in order to improve their learning in the future. Those steps need to be elucidated further with specific examples.

4. From a structural perspective, the work was fairly good and no structural improvements need to be made. It would’ve been good if the writer included specifics about what the homework assignment had taught them and not just include what constituted the homework. Lastly, there needs to be more proofreading done by the writer to eliminate common grammatical mistakes.

(a) I was left wondering about which role, in the roles described by Belbin (2010) does the author relates to the most personally and why. Additionally, I was curious about the process behind the writer’s arrival at their own definition of the concept of theory.

Log 2: Communication

1. The writer summarises the sub-sections of kinds of communication and levels of communication very well. Also, he/she rations their her/his words carefully while describing the issues one might have with communicating effectively. Lastly, the structure is easy to read as it divides the session sub-sections into manageable paragraphs instead of being a block of text.

2. The writer did not include the pie chart data that was provided in the lesson, which was an important observation. There was absence of proper in-text citation in this section as well. The writer left out the sections on communicating in groups and measures one can take to improve their communication skills.

3. The writer fulfilled all the questions that needed to be fulfilled but did not include a personal account of what he/she has learned and what steps he/she will take in order to improve in the future. The reaction that the writer provided could also have been a little more detailed.

4. Again, the writer needs to be more mindful of grammar and in-text citation methods when writing. The writer also needs to move away from describing what the lesson content was minutely and instead relate what they have learnt instead. The emphasis on self-reflection after the lesson was marginal and it needs to be filled more.

5. After reading, I was left wondering about what were the communication skills that the writer wanted to improve.

Log 3: Referencing

1. The writer again makes use of bulleted points and sub-sections in order to concisely present the learnings from the lesson in his/her log. Secondly, the writer correctly relates but doesn’t replicate the lessons that he/she has learnt. Thirdly, the writer reiterates on the importance of learning this lesson in the beginning and also at the end of the log.

2. The writer did not include the sub-section of how to cite when there are more than one authors. Additionally, the writer left out the whole section of plagiarism and that was a significant problem as plagiarism is an important part of the lesson.

3. The learning log did not meet the first requirement as it did not cover all the aspects of the lesson, especially by leaving out the section on plagiarism. Additionally, the future plans for the development of the writer’s referencing skills were ambiguous, again.

4. The rationing of words needs to be revised in the writing as it seemed the writer did not leave out any space for an essential section of the lesson. The writer missed including examples of reference styles, as was given in the lesson.

5. After reading, I was left wondering if the author of the log understood the proper form of Harvard referencing, as it would’ve been only possible to be known for sure, had the writer provided an example of Harvard referencing.

Personal Reflection

During the review of this log, which tried to encompass three lessons related to communication, team work and referencing, I was reminded of the important principles of all these lessons. Also, it was an interesting experience considering different perspectives on certain concepts like what is a theory and what constitutes effective communication. Learning about other perspectives on concepts that individuals internalise within themselves is always an interesting experience and it makes one more richer in experience, both personally and professionally. finally, the assessment gave me a chance to critically look at writing which affords one a chance to improve their own and/or someone else’s work and providing effective, constructive feedback and not merely criticise someone’s work. Criticising without seeing or elucidating on the scope of improvement is counter-productive and such a thing is not right. The document made me look at writing from a constructive viewpoint and made my eyes more trained to notice opportunity and not mistakes.

Looking for further insights on Radiation Remediation: Unveiling Comprehensive Approaches and Environmental Strategies in the Aftermath of the Chernobyl Accident? Click here.

References

1. Belbin, R.M., 2011. Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Human Resource Management International Digest.
2. Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63(6), p.384.