Stallard 1

Madison Stallard

Lewallen

TEL 180D

26 September 2019

IgnitED Lab Reflection

1. Paper Feedback on Project

For this report, Daniela was my primary editor. In return, I was tasked with editing her report as
well. Overall, the editing process was fairly similar to the same process I follow when editing a
literary paper or argumentative essay. Daniela made it even easier because of the well-thought-
out edits that she made to her own paper prior to sending it my way.

As for the edits made on my own paper, I respect Daniela's input and appreciate her taking the
time to be my editor. Most of her critiques were about grammar, there were various situations
where she felt I needed a comma, had run-on sentences and even should rephrase some
statements. After reviewing her feedback and comments, I came to the conclusion that I agreed
with the changes she suggested and made the proper adjustments. I strongly believe that her edits
were critical to the success of my report; not only did she point out major syntax errors, but she
also helped me in areas that my argument needed a stronger build.

2. Implementation of feedback:

Like any paper that I have edited by a peer, I don't even begin to make my own edits until I have
finished reviewing their paper. I do this in order to hold myself responsible and make sure that I
honor our agreement to peer review each other's papers. Once I have completed my part of the
editing partnership, I go through my newly edited paper as a whole while looking and thinking
about the comments and suggestions that were given to me by my editor. At this point, my third
step is to go in and actually make the edits. I often make the edits suggested and then reread that
sentence or section to ensure that the edit fits well and makes sense. Finally, once i am all done
reviewing and making the suggested edits i take time to carefully read my work as a whole. For
this particular report, however, due to the length and specific sections, I would complete this step
after I finished reviewing each specific section.

3. Learning Reflection:

Based on my time spent revising, as well as the time I spent reviewing the revisions made to my
own paper, I have concluded that the overall process is not something that can be done overnight.
It is called a revision process for a reason. In order to have an effective experience, it is
important that the author of the work and the reviewer are communicating well and practicing
 Stallard 2

good time management skills. Daniela and I maintained both, and in return had a very successful
time editing.

If tasked to do this same project again, there is nothing in particular that I would set out to do
differently. Overall, I am content with the way I went about completing the project. I maintained
good management skills, from going to the lab a week in advance to avoid last-minute
procrastination to editing effectively to ensure that Daniela could finish her project.

4. Alternative Use / Future directions

My technology of choice, based on my research, is the virtual reality simulation (VR). As

discussed in my report, I chose the VR system because of its ability to virtually transform
students to a different time or different time period. This opportunity will be extremely effective
in a secondary education history class. Beyond that, the VR system has the potential to be just as
effective in other, non-traditional classrooms. Hypothetically, if a special education program was
able to get a VR system, they could use its functions to perform a different kind of therapy for
students who get overwhelmed easily or maybe need a break from their reality in an effort to
control their emotions. This is a very broad example and needs further research, however it goes
to show that the limits for the VR’s use in the classroom are endless.