- MLO1, MLO2, MLO3, MLO4, MLO5 - Synthesise learning from the weekly topics
- MLO1, MLO2, MLO3, MLO4, MLO5 - Critically evaluate your proposal plan
- MLO1, MLO2, MLO3, MLO4, MLO5 - Reflect on your strengths and developmental areas in relation to academic and research skills
Peers can be an excellent source of feedback and constructive criticism. However, due to the nature of distance learning and the university policies, care should be taken that any collaborative review does not cross into collusion.
- Required: none
- Extension: none
While care needs to be taken to prevent collusion, constructive criticism from peers can be a useful source of improvements.
Gaps in the research proposal could be uncovered by thinking about:
- What are the overarching objectives of the project?
- Are their hypotheses and questions clearly identified?
- Have the ethical implications been identified and addressed?
- What are their methodology and methods?
- Have they presented a plan that is realistic?
It can be useful to consider whether there are any common themes or issues that arise from critique of multiple peers. This potentially can highlight shared areas for improvement.
Feedback does not have to be accepted, but should at least be reflected on.
Support in providing useful feedback can be found here.