Publication Rough Draft

Publication Rough Draft with Peer Comments

Interactive Videos: Changing the Landscape of Higher Education

​

Peer Comments Reflection:

I appreciate the constructive feedback from my peers on my article. It’s encouraging to hear that my work has sparked interest in the topics of VR and AR. I’m glad that the issues and solutions I presented were well-received, and I agree that making the platform suggestions clickable would enhance the reader’s experience. I’ll definitely incorporate this suggestion in my future work.

The meticulous research and logical flow of the article were also acknowledged, which is gratifying. I appreciate the time taken to provide suggestions within the Word document, and I will review them carefully to further improve my work.

The feedback on the organization of the article is valuable. I understand the need for smoother transitions between sections and the inclusion of visual aids like images or infographics. I’ll work on these aspects to ensure a more cohesive and engaging read.

The suggestion to improve conciseness, such as replacing “the use of” with “using”, is a great point. I’ll strive to make my writing more concise and direct in the future.

Overall, I’m grateful for the detailed and thoughtful feedback. It provides me with clear directions for refining my article and improving my writing skills. Thank you!

​

Publication Rough Draft Rubric Overview:

The EDLD 5317 Publication Rough Draft Rubric is a peer-assessment tool for evaluating rough drafts of publications. The rubric is based on five criteria, each worth between 1 and 10 points, for a maximum total of 50 points. The criteria are:

1. Understanding of the Topic: This measures how well the draft demonstrates understanding of the topic, with scores ranging from poor understanding (1-2 points) to exceptional understanding (9-10 points).

2. Quality of Research: This assesses the range and credibility of sources used, and how well the research is integrated into the assignment. Scores range from minimal or no credible sources (1-2 points) to a wide range of high-quality, credible sources (9-10 points).

3. Organization and Structure: This evaluates the organization and logical flow of the draft. Scores range from very poorly organized with no logical flow (1-2 points) to exceptionally well-organized with a clear, logical flow (9-10 points).

4. Writing Quality: This measures the clarity, conciseness, and grammatical correctness of the writing, as well as the maintenance of an academic tone. Scores range from very unclear writing with many errors and no academic tone (1-2 points) to clear, concise, and engaging writing with no errors and a consistent academic tone (9-10 points).

5. Originality and Critical Thinking: This assesses the level of originality and critical thinking demonstrated in the draft. Scores range from little to no originality or critical thinking (1-2 points) to a high level of originality and critical thinking with innovative and well-supported ideas (9-10 points).

Peers use these criteria to assess each other’s drafts, provide critical feedback, and award points. The average score received from peers, along with an explanation of the assessment criteria used by the group, must be submitted through a link to a post. As this is a draft, a perfect grade is not expected, reflecting the ongoing development process.

 

Peer Assessments by:

​

Assessor: Samara Marin Score: 48/50

Assessor: Amburh Richards Score: 43/50

Assessor: Rose Rayner Score: 45/50

Average Score: 45.3/50

 

 

Where I will Submit:

1. The TxDLA Journal of Digital Learning (TxDLA-JDL)

   • Guidelines

     • Member of TxDLA

     • Practitioner articles should be 1250–3,000 words and must not exceed 5,000 words.

     • Practitioner articles should include the following sections:

       • Title

       • Main topic (one sentence)

       • Target Audience. (one sentence identifying who will be iinterested in the article).

       • Keywords

       • Overview of the topic

       • Summary of related literature (typically, 3-5 articles within the past five years).

       • Main body (up to five points of interest that may include scenarios, problems, strategies, methods, solutions, implementations, observations, etc.)

       • Conclusions and recommendations

       • References to works cited (APA). 

2. eLearn Magazine

   • Guidelines

     • The entry must be an article, opinion, interview, or review.

     • Depending on the type of contribution, it must be contextualized to help the audience comprehend the issue and ramifications, or what has previously been written, studied, and published on the topic, and how it adds to that work.

     • The submission should include distinct or competing perspectives on a topic, as well as in-depth coverage of all sides of the argument.

     • Submissions should help the audience grasp what's new, what's essential, and what the takeaway message is.

     • Submissions should be in Word format.

     • Your proposal must include a recommended headline or title that is subject to change, as well as an abstract that briefly highlights the entry.

     • Introduction: Start with the most interesting concept. You don't need to rehash obvious or widely known practices. The reader wants to learn something new; ideally, your article contributes a unique idea to the subject.

     • Style: Avoid using academic jargon and write clearly. Use subheadings to break up the text flow and identify new sections.

     • Articles should be no more than 3,000 words in length (excluding references).​

​