Cycle 2 work
Cycle 2 turned out to be completely different than I thought it would be. I would call it a cycle still in progress - but then I feel like cycle 1 didn't really end until my colleague actually delivered his online presentation (which he did with much success last week on Thursday... more on that in a different posting).
Cycle 2 was originally going to be about peer review and being a contributor - but my realization about how I had been dealing with critique caused me to review that.
For the last two weeks I have worked at incorporating my mid-April realizations about how I had been dealing with critique.
With each critique I've tried to look at the reviewer's comments not as a way that I should (or shouldn't) change my work but rather as a way of understanding what underlying presumptions exist in my work. What knowledge have I taken for-granted? What assumptions have I made? Initially I was concerned that my colleagues (reviewers) would find it an imposition if I kept coming back to them (regarding their comments) w/ "what do you think of this?" and "do you think this makes more sense or is clearer?" We are all under a great deal of daily pressure at the moment and there often seems to be an attitude that one should just get one's work done and not ask too many questions or spend too much time tweaking something to make it better because "getting it done" is more important than taking time to "make it better." :( So - in an effort to include my colleagues in my thought process without "imposing" on their tight schedules, I've takento writing very brief IMs which include my revisions and a quick question to them regarding whether they find it clearer, more informative, etc. In this way I can include them in my process but keep it sort of quick, easy, and rather informal. So far, that seems to be working. I try to limit both the frequency and the length, so as not to interrupt any one person too often. I'm finding that having to put things in IM bite size pieces is refining my own thinking process - a nice and unexpected benefit.
As I've worked through this, I've found that I've come to look forward to the review process as an integral part of making my work better rather than as a necessary but tedious step. I've also found that I truly appreciate my colleagues who make insightful comments regarding the flow, structure, and content of my work over the colleagues who simply catch typos and suggest different grammar or word usage. This in turn has caused me to rethink the way I review my colleagues work. I find that I am making more and more comments regarding instructional design and flow and fewer "editorial" comments. I don't overlook or ignore typos, incorrect grammar, etc (those things are important too) but I now don't shy away from making suggestions regarding structure, flow, presentation, instructional design, etc. I've also started to add some basis for my comments... for example, in a recent review where I noticed a colleague had put a great deal of informational text in a "text box/bubble" and then followed it with one piece of directional/instructional text ("type___and press Enter")... rather than just suggest that this colleague break up the informational text with either line breaks or even multiple bubbles controlled by the learner ("click here to continue...") - I included with my suggestion a short explanation regarding readability, flow, and learner centric design. I'm not sure yet how this new approach to my reviews will ultimately be received - only time will tell. There is a bit of an attitude here that it is more important to just create stuff than to actually spend time understanding learning theory and applying that understanding to what is designed. There is also an attitude that if the writing is "good" (meaning correct grammar, word usage, spelling, etc) then the instructional design is good. I'm not quite sure how to change that, as I'm only just beginning to understand how deeply pervasive the attitude is - but I think modeling a different approach is a good start.
In addition to modeling an Instructional Design (rather than technical writing) approach, I've also tried to model a true collaborative approach by discussing my proposed changes with the reviewer, rather than just making the changes and then sending the project onto the next stage. I have not yet noticed anyone else in my immediate circle doing this (that circle being those of us focused on client education development) but I have noticed that some of my colleagues who focus on internal (employee) education development are doing this. They are new to the review process in general, so perhaps it is easier for them to begin to take a different approach. In the past two to three weeks, my colleagues who work on employee education have begun to approach me about collaborating on their projects, reviewing their work, and assisting them in learning how to use some of the tools that I use to create learning events. I wonder if the personal effort I'm making to learn how to truly embrace critique (rather than just accept it) has somehow made me more approachable even to those who are notreviewing my work?
Cycle 2 was originally going to be about peer review and being a contributor - but my realization about how I had been dealing with critique caused me to review that.
For the last two weeks I have worked at incorporating my mid-April realizations about how I had been dealing with critique.
With each critique I've tried to look at the reviewer's comments not as a way that I should (or shouldn't) change my work but rather as a way of understanding what underlying presumptions exist in my work. What knowledge have I taken for-granted? What assumptions have I made? Initially I was concerned that my colleagues (reviewers) would find it an imposition if I kept coming back to them (regarding their comments) w/ "what do you think of this?" and "do you think this makes more sense or is clearer?" We are all under a great deal of daily pressure at the moment and there often seems to be an attitude that one should just get one's work done and not ask too many questions or spend too much time tweaking something to make it better because "getting it done" is more important than taking time to "make it better." :( So - in an effort to include my colleagues in my thought process without "imposing" on their tight schedules, I've takento writing very brief IMs which include my revisions and a quick question to them regarding whether they find it clearer, more informative, etc. In this way I can include them in my process but keep it sort of quick, easy, and rather informal. So far, that seems to be working. I try to limit both the frequency and the length, so as not to interrupt any one person too often. I'm finding that having to put things in IM bite size pieces is refining my own thinking process - a nice and unexpected benefit.
As I've worked through this, I've found that I've come to look forward to the review process as an integral part of making my work better rather than as a necessary but tedious step. I've also found that I truly appreciate my colleagues who make insightful comments regarding the flow, structure, and content of my work over the colleagues who simply catch typos and suggest different grammar or word usage. This in turn has caused me to rethink the way I review my colleagues work. I find that I am making more and more comments regarding instructional design and flow and fewer "editorial" comments. I don't overlook or ignore typos, incorrect grammar, etc (those things are important too) but I now don't shy away from making suggestions regarding structure, flow, presentation, instructional design, etc. I've also started to add some basis for my comments... for example, in a recent review where I noticed a colleague had put a great deal of informational text in a "text box/bubble" and then followed it with one piece of directional/instructional text ("type___and press Enter")... rather than just suggest that this colleague break up the informational text with either line breaks or even multiple bubbles controlled by the learner ("click here to continue...") - I included with my suggestion a short explanation regarding readability, flow, and learner centric design. I'm not sure yet how this new approach to my reviews will ultimately be received - only time will tell. There is a bit of an attitude here that it is more important to just create stuff than to actually spend time understanding learning theory and applying that understanding to what is designed. There is also an attitude that if the writing is "good" (meaning correct grammar, word usage, spelling, etc) then the instructional design is good. I'm not quite sure how to change that, as I'm only just beginning to understand how deeply pervasive the attitude is - but I think modeling a different approach is a good start.
In addition to modeling an Instructional Design (rather than technical writing) approach, I've also tried to model a true collaborative approach by discussing my proposed changes with the reviewer, rather than just making the changes and then sending the project onto the next stage. I have not yet noticed anyone else in my immediate circle doing this (that circle being those of us focused on client education development) but I have noticed that some of my colleagues who focus on internal (employee) education development are doing this. They are new to the review process in general, so perhaps it is easier for them to begin to take a different approach. In the past two to three weeks, my colleagues who work on employee education have begun to approach me about collaborating on their projects, reviewing their work, and assisting them in learning how to use some of the tools that I use to create learning events. I wonder if the personal effort I'm making to learn how to truly embrace critique (rather than just accept it) has somehow made me more approachable even to those who are not
posted by susan @ 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home