EJOLTS review criteria – feedback table
Paper:
Students, it’s nearly your call: on our way towards a living visual taxonomy of learning support interactions
Brian Williamson
Introductory comment:
Dear Brian, I am sorry I am responding to your paper at this late stage. I have read your paper with great
interest, and the reviews by Jacki and Peter. I find their comments meaningful and I don’t know if I have
much to add, yet I want to bring in a couple of aspects which they have touched, but maybe in a little
different perspective. As English is not my first language, I am not quite sure that I interpret the text right all
the time, so please bear that in mind – I may have misunderstood some of your points.
I will try to be available so that I can read your revised article when it is out.
All the best
Sigrid
Criterion
Comment
1a. Is there sufficient detail for a
reader to understand the valuebased 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 have a main comment, which I believe is tied to criterion 1 and 3,
possibly 2. You use a language connected to your subject field of
science – the use of the term axiom for instance. On p. 6 you write
about the tutoring session as an experiment of input/output. When I
read this, I think of my own guiding and wonder – do you really mean
that? The output from the student, is that not also input for your
response? I can see how each session might be regarded as an
exciting experiment, but I think this expression might also reduce the
valuable encounter between I and You (Buber 1937). I wonder if this
language is consistent with the values that you have expressed.
Maybe this is something you have already responded to?
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.
I too think that your values are clearly stated, and you explain well
what you mean. You use the values to examine your practice, but
without providing examples from your practice where the values are
visible.
1c. In other words, has the author
provided sufficient detail of their
living-educational-theory for it to be
understood?
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.
I am looking forward to your revised article, as I believe it will be more
comprehensible when you have rephrased the main statement as
suggested by Peter.
It is not clear to me how for instance FIA is part of your practice? How
did this theory of analyses influence your practice?
Back to language: You set out some dichotomies for instance of inner
outer regarding motivation. But is it not more holistic than that? Outer
motivation can create inner motivation. Inner motivation is not
necessarily already there, so that it would be “something we would to
anyway” (p.8), would it?
I do love your drawings/diagrams. Yet, I wonder if it would be good to
discuss the three levels “I know I know”, “I am stuck” and remote”.
Sometimes if find that I do not know that I know, but neither am I
stuck. I know that I am in the process of understanding… Maybe you
have discussed this but I did not see it.
3. Can it be understood by
practitioners from diverse fields of
practice and research? Where
context-specific language and
jargon are used, are they clarified?
4. Is there sufficient evidence to
support the claims that are made?
I have problems understanding what you mean when you write toy
praxis, Are your examples made up from your long practice? Could
you give more concrete examples?
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?
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 socio-cultural, historical, economic and political
contexts, and inter-personal relationships?
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?
8. Are the author's' explanatory principles and living standards of
judgement clear in this paper?
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?
10. Is the paper in the EJOLTS house style? (See
http://ejolts.net/submission.)
Yes, mainly. There is some
inconsistency in the references in
the text, where the brackets
sometimes are within one or two
commas as i.e in p. 8 … their locus
of control, Rotter (1966), Lefcourt
(2014) is external (outer) to
themselves?