Benson 1

Savanna Benson

Professor Lewallen

EDT 180D

26 September 2019

EDT 180 Inquiry Reflection

1. Peer feedback on project:

Most of the peer feedback I received on my paper were simple grammar mistakes, incorrect

spellings, and incomprehensible sentences. I have the tendency to write quickly, then taking my

time in the editing process. Because of this, many of the feedback I receive from both my peers and

from myself focus mostly on fixing the details within my writing. My peer editor said that my ideas

were solid, but that they had to be refined and expounded in order to my project. Without refining

my ideas, my peer said the paper was lacking, and my ideas surrounding the IgnitED labs were not

explored in their entirety. In one instance, my peer editor said I should expand more on how I would

program the iVoices in order to best challenge and engage my students.

Another thing my peers focused on was my tendency to use the same sentence structure

throughout the paper. My sentences became blended together, difficult to distinguish where one

thought began and another ended. Many of my sentences began with the same transitional phrases,

or they had the same general flow to them. I would use the same formula for my sentences,

resulting in a very repetitive sentence structure which decreased readability, and therefore

decreased my ethos. It is vital to understand what one is talking about in an academic paper, and

simple mistakes, like the absence of an oxford comma or the repetition of the same sentence

structure can severely subtract from one’s authority over a given subject.

Lastly, my peers focused on my overly formal dialogue. Because this report is supposed to

reflect our own experiences in the IgnitED lab, my peers thought my writing could use more of my
 Benson 2

personal voice in my story telling. My first draft of the paper was too formal and focused more on

the technology and the IgnitED lab than it did on my own experiences with the technology. I talked

about how teachers and other professionals could use these technologies, rather than how I could

use them in my own classroom. With a lack of personality and voice in my writing, the paper did not

meet certain requirements outlined in the rubric.

2. Implementation of feedback:

I was able to implement most of the feedback my peers gave me. I obviously fixed all the

grammar and spelling mistakes that I did not notice reading through it the first time. Unfortunately, I

need to work on my accuracy while typing because I can type relatively fast without any distractions,

but I tend to forget commas and simple things that subtract from the professionalism of a paper. I

also fixed my repetitive sentence structure by rephrasing certain sentences, implementing effective

transitions, and reading through my paper aloud. I think most of the feedback I was relatively easy

to fix, and I understood why they said it needed to be fixed.

I did not incorporate my voice into this essay the way I put it into my personal, fictional stories. I

do believe I should retain some semblance of professionalism in all academic papers, even if they

are focused on my personal experiences. Unless I am asked to write a fictional story or an informal

personal story, I like to separate my writing into two types of styles. I rarely use my informal writing

for academic purposes because I tend to use contractions, slang, and realistic dialogue. I did,

however, talk more about my personal experience in the IgnitED lab. I replaced some of the

unnecessary fluff with my ideas on the technology and their potential uses in the classroom. I

incorporated the information with my opinions and ideas on how to use the technologies in my

future classroom.
 Benson 3

3. Learning Reflection:

Throughout the process, I learned how to write a formal plan regarding an experiment or

interactive learning experience. I had never written a paper like this before, and I think it gave me

some good insight, especially regarding how to write a formal scientific write-up. Because I am a

biology major, I will be writing outlines like these very often, and this was a very good introductory

assignment. Additionally, I had never recorded a personal video like that one before, and I think it

was a very good idea. I plan to make similar review videos for my future students, so the process of

recording, editing, and uploading the video was good practice for my future career.

If I had to do this assignment again, I would have written my project plan completely before

visiting the IgnitED lab because then I would have had a better understanding of what I was

supposed to be looking at or what I should have investigated further. This also would have given me

more time to focus on interacting with the various technologies, rather than learning about the

technologies and how to work them. I also would have done more research about the technologies

in the IgnitED lab, so I would have been more prepared and more focused in my investigations.

4. Alternative / Future Uses:

As I discussed in my project plan, a lot of the technologies in the IgnitED lab are limited only to

the imagination of the user. The employees at the IgnitED lab were actually in the middle of

replicating a prosthetic hand using the 3-D printer to help biomedical students understand the

process of fitting and building such intricate tools. Upon later reflection, I wonder if the 3-D printer

could mass produce certain commodities that are lacking around the world. If we could 3-D print

feminine hygiene products, diapers, and other necessities for struggling communities, then the

standard of living would skyrocket. Additionally, we could decrease the cost of certain products by

producing them in mass 3-D prints. Razor blades are specifically one item that are vital to

maintaining healthy hygiene habits and keeping a respectable appearance. They are especially
 Benson 4

important for displaced peoples looking for jobs. Employers are more likely to hire a neat, clean-

shaven man than a straggly-haired bearded man.

Producing these day-to-day products could also strongly benefit the school system. In her Ted

Talk, life-long educator Rita Pierson talks about teaching in lower income schools and how children

cannot learn when they are unbathed or hungry or thirsty. It follows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs; a

human cannot achieve happiness, fulfillment, learning, or relationships without reaching basic goals,

like maintaining a healthy weight. These small things could make such a monumental difference in

the lives of a struggling family. The success also trickles upward. Because a child does better in

school, a parent does not have to spend so much time working with him or her on homework, and

they can focus on their child’s emotional and psychological wellbeing. The parent can also focus

more on his or her career, propelling the once struggling family up the socio-economic ladder

toward self-sufficiency and success.