Critique^It Reflection

We decided to work on this tool review as a group because Critique^It is a software program that facilitates peer review, and while we could have gleaned information by playing both “reviewer” and “receiver” individually, we would have missed some issues (like formatting) and not had as much detail to present to the class. For a program that is so costly and would need to be “sold” to the administration, it is beneficial to have as much information as possible. If this had not been done as a group project, much of what we felt needed to be present in the video and in the explanation, because of the robust features of the software, would have been left out due to length constraints.

Working as a group within this software also enabled us to view the program as both student and administrator without having to pretend that one aspect or another was or wasn’t present. Additionally, it enabled us to pool together for information that we needed for the written portion (primarily remembering information that had been discussed with one of the co-founders).

When we initially began planning, we were considering uploading drafts of the written portion of the project to Critique^It. However, because we were writing 3000 words together (and wanted to sound like the same voice), we found that using GoogleDocs was the most conducive to our goals. The majority of the work was done asynchronously (with the exception of a Google Hangout before we jumped in), but we did find that, because GoogleDocs has a chat feature, we often ran into each other when working on the written portion and were able to chat synchronously, which helped speed up the work and make it easier to make decisions. While Critique^It does have a message board, it’s not synchronous, and each of us uploading our input as a version would have put the responsibility of putting it all together on a single person. Instead, we moved things around and made decisions as a group.

In addition to using Google Docs, we used screen capture software, iMovie, and Powerpoint to create our project. At first, I had forgotten that Jing Pro was on its way out the door, so there was an issue with a video created in Jing; however, we soon discovered that TechSmith replaced JingPro with SnagIt, which offered a 30 day free trial. After the videos were collected and edited, and our conclusion on the written portion was done, I created slides that gave our recommendation and supported the use of peer review in Powerpoint to insert as images into iMovie.

Overall, we worked as a group very well. Each group member was able to contribute in an effective way that aligned with her strengths, and we were able to create a community as we worked. This may be because we had spent time together at C&W (being in the dorms will do that) and because we set this group up on our own.  It was a pleasure working with you both Megan and Sarah!