Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

CCCC Presentation 2006 on Peer-to-Peer Review

431

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
431
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Coalition-Building on Weblogs: Negotiating Innovation and Access Clancy Ratliff, University of Minnesota CCCC 2006 [email_address]
  • 2. Overview <ul><li>Review of the Hypertext 101 case </li></ul><ul><li>P2P review as consensus-building and scholarly review </li></ul><ul><li>Points of consensus reached in Hypertext 101 case </li></ul><ul><li>Comparison of traditional peer review and P2P review </li></ul>
  • 3. Review of Case <ul><li>“ Hypertext 101” published April 4, 2005, in Inside Higher Ed </li></ul><ul><li>April 4, 2005: Brooke and Rice respond. Hochman responds to Rice in comments </li></ul><ul><li>April 7, 2005: Rice posts again </li></ul><ul><li>April 8, 2005: Brooke posts again </li></ul><ul><li>April 9, 2005: Gerald responds to Brooke </li></ul><ul><li>April 12, 2005: Edwards responds to Brooke and Gerald </li></ul><ul><li>April 12, 2005: Brooke responds to Edwards and Gerald </li></ul><ul><li>April 14, 2005: Gerald responds to Edwards and Rice </li></ul>
  • 4. Behind <ul><li>Bottom line: it's not time to start thinking about technology. If you haven't started yet, it's time to catch up. If you don't know how to put together a QuickTime movie, you're behind. If you haven't futzed around with sound tools, you're behind. If you're still thinking about how to do web pages, you're behind. If you don't &quot;get&quot; blogs and wikis, you're behind. If you don't think that the Grokster case has anything to do with you, you're behind. And I could keep on going. There is nothing wrong with writing an essay, a view, a site, whatever, addressing those who are (by now) late adopters, but why in the world would exhortations to think critically about technology have any effect on those people when they've been hearing the same song for years now? The net is changing education, journalism, politics, science, culture, etc etc etc. If you're not keeping track of those changes, you're behind. Pure and simple. (Brooke, 2005, April 4) </li></ul>
  • 5. Points of Consensus <ul><li>Often, access isn’t really a problem, but it’s treated like one (Lovas, Brooke) </li></ul><ul><li>Many of the most innovative tools are free, like de.licio.us, Audacity, Blogger, etc. (Brooke) </li></ul><ul><li>“ Think critically about technology” has lost a lot of its meaning (Rice) </li></ul><ul><li>Although access continues to be a problem, we still have a responsibility to study innovation because these tools shape culture and writing practices whether we use them or not (Rice, Brooke, Gerald) </li></ul>
  • 6. Identities of everyone are usually known Blind review Comments public for the benefit of all Comments intended for the author only Open participation, benefit of both expert and nonexpert perspectives Designated reviewers Knowledge making and consensus building Gatekeeping Multi-way feedback process One-way accept/reject/ revise and resubmit P2P Review Traditional Scholarly Peer Review
  • 7.  
  • 8. Conclusion: Questions for Discussion <ul><li>Couldn’t this same discussion have taken place on a listserv? </li></ul><ul><li>How could P2P review be implemented in scholarly journals? </li></ul><ul><li>Can P2P review be used in a deliberate and systematic way in the classroom? If so, how? </li></ul>

×