Scope, Objectives, Content

In scope, discusses related element, very important/high priority.

Organization

The article does proceed logically, and the structure and sections are very readable. I included some comments about voice and shifting tense in the last section of this review. Minor, easy copy edits.

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

This paper does a great job of describing all elements of the Open Pedagogy Learning Circles. Covers the why and how of their development, does a great job of talking the reader through the pilot and follow-up implementations, and includes strong next steps in the conclusion.

The section describing the impact of Mentimeter on participant engagement might be a distraction. The data isn't really robust enough to support this as a 'case for using Mentimeter', and the rest of the article is rich enough that removing the section on Mentimeter might actually increase the readers' ability to benefit from the description of the learning circle implementation. [wait, I read the piece again-again and added more notes to this review section don't delete anything yet].

Leaving the Mentimeter stuff in doesn't make it a deal breaker though, great piece either way. I'd leave that up to the authors.

Note after third full read through: ok this time I read it through faster, and see that it is central to your discussion of how you assessed and evaluated the work for iterative development. First time, slow detailed read through, it seemed like a detour 'about Mentimeter', I think the regular reader on the street won't find it a distraction. If you leave it in, though, you might take a couple of sentences and explain what Mentimeter is. I can see this very strong piece being read by people outside of librarianship/open, in other learning design spaces that might not see a Mentimeter as much as we do.

And yes, a humble brag, I read the article three times as I reviewed it. :-)

Writing Style, References

This is a strong case study which includes rich detail that can help the reader make sense of the context of the case under discussion and transfer it to their own environment. Well written piece describing a fantastic, meaningful, impactful project.

I would suggest removing the first sentence in paragraph 2 of the conclusion. The sentence claims that "without appropriate support and resources, faculty won't attempt open pedagogy at all". I think making this claim discounts the fact that many faculty do enact effective pedagogy that fits our understanding of 'open pedagogy', they just don't know it as open pedagogy. They are enacting the practice under the auspices of, well, meaningful and effective pedagogy. Beginning the paragraph with the second sentence, "The Open Education Network has rolled out . . ." would capture the meaning of the paragraph without leaving readers wrestling with their understandings related to the claim made in sentence one. 

I would toss in Catherine Cronin's 2017 piece on Open Pedagogy somewhere when you are discussing definitions. No need to rewrite, I think it would be an appropriate in text citation after sentence 2 in the paragraph before "Why Learning Circles". ( . . .focus on student agency as scholars . . . .own right). It would also fit in that paragraph since you are citing Lambert and Katz & Allen. The Cronin piece is a good balance to the Wiley 2017 piece, I think they are both important to our understanding of open pedagogy. But I also toss in Cronin references wherever I can, because I love her work, so definitely authors' choice on this. Strong piece even without the Cronin reference.

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 15-34.

Application

Absolutely!!!!!

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

Well-written case study that includes rich details that will help readers envision enactment of similar projects in their own context. Includes access to the materials in a variety of formats and locations that can optimize readers' use of the curriculum. Yay!!!

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

These aren't weaknesses, just copy-edit stuff that probably slipped by tired eyes doing the proof reading. The piece is great. Some minor observations:

The "Discussion" shifts to referring to Amanda by name, I think in the sections before she had been referred to as the "OEP Specialist". The tone of the "Discussion" also centers the goals of the pilot as "Amanda's goals"; in prior sections it seemed more objective. Unifying this one way or the other throughout the piece will be helpful.

"Overview and Results of Follow-Up Cohorts" voice moves to first person, "I wanted to ensure", that will get sorted as you go through and unify the voice/perspective.

Inconsistent use of hyphen in the word/phrase "follow up" throughout. I have no idea which way it should actually be, but probably pick one.

Third paragraph before "Conclusion", inconsistent tense. Which I guess is better than consistently tense, ha!! Seems like a copy paste thing, one sentence maybe got added from another section without shifting the tense to match the current paragraph.

Inconsistent capitalization of Learning Circle, particularly in the conclusion. I think you capitalize Learning Circle most of the article, then it shows up lower case a couple of times in the conclusion. Maybe that was intentional, if so, wahoo!

Overall a quick run-through/copy-edit for grammar, the occasional (maybe just one) it's instead of its, etc. 

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
Highly appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
Highly sound

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

×

Scope, Objectives, Content

This article is well within the scope of the Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education, as it focuses on a program designed to provide professional development opportunities to faculty centered around open pedagogy. 

Organization

The article proceeds logically and adheres to the recommended structure and section guidelines. 

Methodology, Approach, Conclusions

The authors’ methodology, approach, and conclusions are sound and factually accurate. The authors’ literature review and references demonstrate that they are well-versed in their topic. 

They're working with a relatively small population for the surveys, but they don't appear to be suggesting that their findings are more broadly generalizable. The general consistency of responses between cohorts also bolsters their conclusions. For the participant surveys, I was curious to know if the authors had gathered information about which of the two participant categories (faculty or faculty partners) the responses came from. I think that could potentially be useful context when considering the participant feedback. For example, they noted that some of the participants felt that creating the final project was busy work. The implications of that and how to improve in response to that feedback could be different if those individuals were from one group versus the other. 

While the authors were very clear in their survey results section to indicate the total number of respondents for each of the cohorts, it appears (unless I missed something) that they don't indicate the total number of participants in each of the follow-up cohorts until later in the discussion section. I think it would be useful to have that information earlier. 

Writing Style, References

The writing style is very clear and cohesive. It's clear that the authors are well-versed in the subject matter, not just for the purposes of producing this article, but for creating this program in the first place. The article generally has a singular voice, despite being the work of three authors, which is excellent; however, there is a spot at the beginning of the Overview and Results of Follow-Up Cohorts section where they use the pronoun "I", which seems strange on an article with three authors. 

In terms of references, there were a few places where it was unclear to me why the authors chose to hyperlink to a source rather than providing a reference. For example, several sources in the Why Learning Circles? section are linked to directly, but they are not present in the list of references at the end of the article. That's perhaps a question for the copyediting phase since it seems to be more of a stylistic choice. 

Application

Yes, this article is very practical in terms of providing readers with the background and resources needed to replicate a version of this program at their own institutions. As the authors indicated, there is a great need for more professional development around open pedagogy, and this article (and the program it details) addresses that need. 

What are the stronger points/qualities of the article?

The article provides a very comprehensive picture of this program and its goals and outcomes. The reader gets a good sense of the program's impetus and development, the specifics of its implementation (including links to the program resources), and its results. Someone potentially interested in implementing some version of this at their own institution could read this article and come away from it with a sense of how to implement it and what to expect if they choose to do so. 

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

This isn't necessarily a weak point, but there were a few spots where some additional information could have provided me with more clarity. For example, I would have liked to have seen more information about the recruitment/application process. In the Overview of Open Pedagogy Learning Circles, it mentions that they "admitted a group of 18 instructional faculty and faculty partners (instructional designers, librarians, administrators, etc.)," but it wasn't clear to me what steps they took (if any) to ensure that the group had adequate representation from these two categories of participants. 

I also wonder if the Learning Circle Projects section might benefit from the addition of a diagram of the project timelines. The descriptions are clear, but also seeing a side-by-side, week-by-week breakdown of the two projects might make that information a little easier to digest and to see any potential connections between what the two categories of participants are doing at any given stage. It's definitely not a must-have, just something to consider. 

The section on using digital learning tools makes it very clear that the authors were cognizant of the need to provide participants with plenty of information to choose tools that were appropriate for their contexts and the training necessary to use these tools competently. However, I wondered if they had considered/discussed the issue of institutional approval of such tools. We've run into this issue at my institution on numerous occasions where there are great tools to facilitate open educational practices (including some of the ones that are frequently referenced in the open education community), but they haven't received institutional approval for use for one reason or another (e.g., security requirements, LTI compatability, accessibility, etc.). And even in scenarios where they do receive approval, this process often takes months, and faculty (and even faculty partners, in many cases) generally aren't prepared for navigating it. It can be frustrating for faculty and faculty partners to learn about all of these possibilities, only to have them thwarted by institutional bureacracy. It made me wonder if this is something that was discussed in the Learning Circles program. 

Peer Review Ranking: Scope
Highly relevant

Peer Review Ranking: Clarity
Very clear

Peer Review Ranking: Contribution
Highly contributes

Peer Review Ranking: Methodology
Highly appropriate

Peer Review Ranking: Conclusion
Highly sound

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

×