Peer feedbacks I gave

 Sandwich feedbacks I have given

1: Mary Jane Skopakow

Positives: Your reflections are well thought out, and you are clearly critically engaging with the topic, which is commendable. I appreciate the way you have married personal experiences (you as a student during COVID-19) and academic references, which adds veracity to your writing. Your use of terms like digital natives/immigrants and present discussions of AI tools show that you are making solid connections between theory, research and lived experience. This balance makes your reflections thought-provoking and relevant. 

Constructive: You have a few areas that you may want to refine: 

Sentence length & flow: At times, your sentences are quite long, which can make reading feel so dense. Slicing these into shorter sentences will ultimately help with clarity and readability. 

Clarity & repetition: At times, the same idea was being expressed slightly differently (e.g., technology being both "suppressed in schools" and avoided in classrooms). Slashing repeated ideas will bolster your argument. 

Referencing style: Your references are present, however, formatting styles could be more consistent (e.g., italics for journal names, consistent end punctuation). 

Action plans depth: Your conclusions offer a good rationale for technology integration, but your "Action Plan" sections could have more clarity. For example, what classroom practices could pre-service teachers like you engage in? What would look like "normalising technology" on a day to day basis? 

Positive: In conclusion, I find your blog engaging, well-researched, and appropriate to theory and practice. You have demonstrated a clearly defined awareness of the way technology impacts teachers and students, and you have contextualised your voice as a pre-service teacher authentically. With some refinement to structure and more detail on action-oriented research, your blog could be a fairly polished and professional product!

2: Jennifer Pham

Positives (top bun): 

Introduction & Personal Profile: Your introduction clearly communicates the purpose of your reflective journal, your background, and your aspirations as a future educator. You provide a strong personal connection with insights about your current career and studies, which aligns well with “excellent achievement” on the rubric. 

Critical Reflections: Both reflections demonstrate thoughtful engagement with the driving questions. You balance the benefits and risks of technology in education and integrate your personal experiences, showing reflective and critical thinking. This aligns closely with “excellent” to “exceptional achievement” for understanding and critiquing the provocation. 

Use of References: You reference a wide range of sources (Rajendran, Timotheou, Cunningham, Whelan, etc.) and integrate them to support your arguments. This demonstrates awareness of theoretical content and lecture readings. 

Areas for Improvement (filling): 

Sentence Clarity & Grammar: Some sentences are long and complex, which can obscure meaning. Breaking these into shorter sentences will improve readability and coherence. For example: “Perhaps I’ve sparked something. You too, may be thinking the same.” could be rephrased as one clear sentence. 

Reflective Framework Use: While your reflections are thoughtful, the rubric emphasizes evidence of a reflective framework. Explicitly referencing or structuring your reflections around a known framework (e.g., Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle) could strengthen your score in this area. 

APA Referencing & Formatting: Some in-text citations are repeated frequently and could be paraphrased or summarized to reduce redundancy. Ensure all references match APA style in both in-text and reference list formatting. 

Paragraph Structure & Flow: Some paragraphs are dense. Use clear topic sentences and separate ideas to improve flow. This will make your reflections easier to read and ensure each point is clearly developed. 

Digital Policies & Critical Analysis: While you mention policies and statistics, a deeper critique of their implications for classroom practice could enhance your critical writing. For example, linking digital access inequalities to teaching strategies would show higher-level synthesis. 

Positives (bottom bun): 

Your reflections show deep engagement, originality, and strong personal insight, with excellent use of research to support your points. With some targeted improvements in clarity, framework application, and APA consistency, your journal could achieve an exceptional level across most rubric criteria. You already demonstrate strong critical thinking and awareness of both student and teacher perspectives in a digital age—keep building on that foundation!