So, Do Reusable Assignments Really Benefit Students?

Scope, Objectives, Content

I am unsure whether the article is in scope for JOERHE due in part to inconsistencies in the definition of open pedagogy in the field. Clinton-Lisell’s (2021) systematic review of open pedagogy research found that “open pedagogy was [generally] defined in the context of open licensing affordances.” This conclusion aligns with my understanding of open pedagogy. If using this most common understanding, then in my opinion the article under review is not relevant for publishing in JOERHE. If very broadly defined (much less common according to Clinton-Lisell) where any reusable assignment is open pedagogy, then Stancil’s article is relevant in scope for JOERHE. I must defer to the editor's judgment regarding the definition used by this journal. Another journal may be more appropriate.

I did not find a compelling argument in this article for it being about open pedagogy. This would help make potential relevance to JOERHE clearer. Their language in the title and throughout seems to support the notion that this is about reusable assignments more broadly and not open pedagogy (openly licensed/shared reusable assignments) specifically. I found it a bit odd that the one mention of open pedagogy in the body of the article cites a number of older articles on the topic without mentioning Clinton-Lisell’s review. 

Further complicating matters is the lack of confidence that all assignments participants discussed were reusable by any definition. (“Numerous types of assignments were identified via the interviews, however the differentiation between disposable and non-disposable assignments could not be triangulated via the document analysis of the syllabi.  Unfortunately, the syllabi did not present assignment requirements and rubrics in the granularity that was required for a thorough content analysis” (p. 4).) The phrasing here left me wondering how much we can value what the participants said about reusable assignments if they could be talking about non-reusable assignments. I was also surprised that this point was not listed later under Limitations. If I misunderstood the author’s point here, it may be wise to revise that section or add something arguing why the study's conclusions are still reliable and relevant.

The article itself is limited in scope and applicability. Still, it does have value for what it reveals about a specific population – graduate students employed in their field of study who engage in assignments directly applicable to their work. It does contribute to the larger body of work and scholarly conversation regarding reusable assignments.

The abstract is a concise and accurate summary of the article, except the last sentence which situates the article with two frameworks. I was surprised to see that neither framework was discussed in the article. The author might consider expanding on the connection briefly in the article. 

I would have liked the article’s title/subtitle to be more specific so it is obvious at a glance that this article is about a very narrow population. It is phrased in such a way to suggest that it will be a widely applicable article. I suggest revising it to include the phrase, “working graduate students.” (So, do Reusable Assignments Really Benefit Working Graduate Students?; So, do Reusable Assignments Really Benefit Students? A Qualitative Case Study Investigating Working Graduate Student Perceptions of Learning; etc.) Similarly, under Significance heading, the first sentence is overly broad and should be edited to be more accurate (for example, adding “for graduate students who are working in their field of study.”) Otherwise the significance of this article is overstated.

The guiding research question was difficult to understand as written, perhaps due to a grammatical error. Given how important the research question is for understanding an article, I recommend revising it for improved clarity.

Organization

The article flowed logically and appeared to have appropriate headings and structure.

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The methodology was appropriate for the problem described. It is a narrow focus and the author is clear about that (except in the title and Significance section, as described elsewhere in this review), along with the accompanying limitations. Reasoning and analysis of the qualitative data seem sound, though the inability to verify that assignments were reusable raises some concern. The author might consider clarifying why they feel that the inability to triangulate with syllabi doesn’t diminish their conclusions.

Writing Style, References

The article is easy to follow and understand, with rare exceptions. Most notable is the issue with the wording of the research question addressed elsewhere in this review. The article will benefit from a close pass from an editor for minor grammatical and in-text citation format errors.

Some slight errors in APA formatting are present in reference list including some problems with italics (including not italicizing journal titles and volume numbers), missing periods (such as after last date parentheses), and use of title vs. sentence case (article titles should be in sentence case and journal titles in title case). These issues should be resolved quickly and easily.

Regarding figures, 1.1 would benefit from some visual editing to make it appear more polished and professional.

The most substantial issue in this area is the age of references used. The only work cited that is more recent than 2019 is the author’s own 2022 article. It appears the author didn’t update their review of relevant literature in the years since they wrote their 2020 dissertation on this topic. Before publication of this article, it is essential to conduct an updated search of the literature and update the article according to what is found. Some of the articles I was surprised not to see cited include Clinton-Lisell and Gwozdz (2023) on student perceptions of renewable assignments, Clinton-Lisell’s (2021) systematic review of open pedagogy research, and possibly Werth and Williams (2021) on student motivation in open pedagogy.

On a related note, it should be noted to readers in some way that this article is based largely on a prior dissertation.

Application

The article contributes evidence for why instructors in graduate courses should implement assignments that allow students the flexibility to do work that is relevant to their work.

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

It contributes qualitative data showing the positive impact of reusable assignments that graduate students working in the field can immediately apply.

After revisions, this article has the potential to add to the scholarly conversation on this topic. If it is determined not to be sufficiently relevant to JOERHE's scope and audience, the author should definitely submit it to other journals!

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

The most substantial need for revision is in the area of reviewing the literature published in the past 5 years on the topic and updating the references accordingly (and possibly re-evaluating the argument, conclusions, etc., if the current scholarly conversation warrants it).

See full review contents for additional areas needing attention.

 

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

The article is well within the scope as it explores the impact of renewable/reusable assignments, a hallmark of open pedagogy practice. The examination of the efficacy of renewable/open pedagogy assignments is an important undertaking as the time, effort, and pedagogical impact for both student and instructor is considerable.  

Organization

The article proceeds logically and in accordance witht he recommended structure for such a publication.  

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The qualitative methodology for this research utilizes a case study to do a deep-dive into the perceptions of renewable assignments for working graudate students.  While the scope is limited to a single institution within the United States with a total participation rate of 18 students, the methodology is sound and clearly outlined by Stancil.  The inductive coding procedure employed in the research study results in 'emergent themes' and the analysis of the themes and qualitative research is sound and factual with the inclusion of direct participant responses. 

Writing Style, References

The writing style is consitent with the outlined standards for the journal. Stancil outlines previous work surrounding Open Educational Pedagogy (OEP) while citing specific work related to both forms of output and benefits to students. Missing from this analysis is DeRosa and Robison's seminatl chater, "From OER to Open Pedagogy: Harnessing the Power of Open" that appears in the text, The Philosophy and Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and Science, as well as collective critical work by Jhangiani and DeRosa.  

Application

The article is forthright in asserting that andragogy may lie at the heart of the 'value-add' of reusable assignments in that 'work that matters matters more.'  The students' responses contribute to the OEP assertion that meaningful assignments that are not fixed in a particular point of the learning process resonate well with and contribute to long-term learning.  Furthermore, the article provides evidence that working graduate students value the congruency between classroom learning and their paid employment.  

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article provides thoughtful examination of the congruency between work and school for graduate students engaged in OEP.  The insightful qualitative responses are illuminating and provide 'lived experience' valuable insight.  

What are the weaker points/qualities of the article? How could they be strengthened?

As noted by Stancil, the scope and size of the research is limited.  Given that the scope/size cannot be altered at this point in time, any strenghtening would come from further future research.

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
Highly appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
sound

Note:
This review refers to round of peer review and may pertain to an earlier version of the document.

×