EJOLTS review criteria – feedback
Paper:
Students, it’s nearly your call: on our way towards a living visual taxonomy of learning support interactions
Brian Williamson
Introductory comment:
Brian – in reviewing your paper I am aware that I have been influenced by two very different perspectives:
first, research of my own practice of one-to-one learning facilitation (PhD 2002), and second the enhanced
awareness of having been a ‘student’ in a one-to-one tutor relationship for the last twelve months. You
will see from my comments that one particular question has emerged, in several different forms, that I
would like you to consider: What has been, what is, and what will continue to be, the ‘student’s’ role in
your learning, and how do you work with the power dynamic implicit in the learning relationship?
Jacqui Scholes-Rhodes
17th September 2015
Criterion
Comment
1a. Is there sufficient detail for a reader
to understand the value-based
explanation of the author for their
educational influence in their own
learning, the learning of others and the
learning of the social formations where
they live and work?
I am struck by the clarity of the description of your eight Values
but am also intrigued by their ‘settled certainty’, a sense that
they are almost disembodied from your practice in the
moment. By that, I mean that they appear fixed, as if set at a
specific point of arrival, and I find myself looking for the
curiosity and vulnerability that would indicate a ‘living’ theory,
one that is evolving as you work with and through it.
1b. Is the author transparent about
what constitutes their driving values,
why and how these are manifested in
their practice, and through what
process of reflection.
Question: Do you have evidence you might include that could
strengthen the ‘living’ nature?
1c. In other words, has the author
provided sufficient detail of their livingeducational-theory for it to be
understood?
It is very clear in your text that you have explored and extracted
your theory from a well-documented journey, and that gives
the paper a feeling of being well-grounded. Your ‘I’ is extremely
clear and loudly expressed.
Question: As you apply your taxonomy how do you both
observe and reflect on what you – and the ‘other’ (ie the
student) – continue to learn?
2. Is it potentially comprehensible to
an audience interested in extending
their knowledge of the transformational
possibilities of Living Theory research?
By this we mean an audience who
wishes to develop their understanding
of how their core life-affirming and lifeenhancing, ontological and relational
values inform and transform their lives,
personally and professionally.
In your Abstract you share the intention of describing the
development of your Living Theory. The framework of your
taxonomy, your eight values, nine contextual regions of knowhow are very clearly set out and provide as structure to your
paper.
3. Can it be understood by
practitioners from diverse fields of
I am aware that Peter has responded positively in this section
and so it is with caution that I offer a slightly different
Question: is there a way you might show how these are
integrated into a whole practice, in a way that evidences their
development rather than simply their presentation? For me to
engage totally I need to experience the relational nature of your
work, to share those aspects of transformation that are both
personal and collective, and potentially unique to your practice.
And, do you have a notion of co-creation?
1
practice and research? Where contextspecific language and jargon are used,
are they clarified?
perspective on some of your word usage: without further
explanation I cannot decipher ‘transcripts of utterances’, nor
am I familiar with the term ‘androgogic.’ As it is likely that their
meaning is context specific, I would appreciate some guidance
in my reading and therefore engagement.
4. Is there sufficient evidence to support Without the voice(s) of the other party in the tutor relationship
the claims that are made?
(ie the student) I find this difficult to assess. I have personal
concerns about the power dynamic in one-to-one situations,
and especially where there is implicit authority that is
unacknowledged. Developing the ‘I’ without considering the
‘we’ feels uncomfortable – and I am aware that this probably
represents a very personal response to your paper’s thesis.
Question: At what point does the ‘other’ also ask the question
‘How do I improve my (learning) practice?’
5. Are there sufficient details of how
the author has validated their claims to
know so that the reader can share in
that knowledge through the creative
aspects of their own reading?
My response above covers this.
6. Is the normative background of the
author and their work clear? By this we
mean has the author provided sufficient
details, for instance, of their sociocultural, historical, economic and
political contexts, and inter-personal
relationships?
Yes – very clear.
7. Is the intra-personal context of the
author clear? By this we mean is there
sufficient detail for the reader to know
enough about the author to understand
their account?
Yes – the ‘inside-out’ voice is very clearly heard.
8. Are the author's' explanatory
principles and living standards of
judgement clear in this paper?
The paper would benefit from a final summary that explains
how all aspects of your LET are integrated and evidenced.
9. Is the paper of a high intellectual and
scholarly quality? By this we mean has a
reasonable and well-reasoned
argument been made and has the
author critically engaged with thinking
of others?
I share Peter’s response on this.
10. Is the paper in the EJOLTS house
style? (See
http://ejolts.net/submission.)
I find some of the writing confusing in its grammatical structure,
and the use of exclamation marks without any help in
appreciating their inclusion somewhat confusing. There are
several typos that need correcting (eg p.7 ‘with would’ in 3rd
para), some spelling inconsistencies, such as humour and
humor in the same paragraph, know-how and knowhow etc.,
and maybe some wrongly used words, such as ‘excepted’ on
p.20 and ‘education intuitions’ on p.10.
2