A critique by
Sarah Spangler
English Studies Doctoral Student
Adjunct Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.828.7430
srspang1@odu.edu
Megan McKittrick
English Studies Doctoral Student
Full-time Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.753.8161
mmckittr@odu.edu
Catrina Mitchum
English Studies Doctoral Student
Old Dominion University
Adjunct Faculty
Tidewater Community College
609.425.7968
cmitc022@odu.edu
Critique^It Written Review
Critique^It is a digital peer review tool that provides users with dynamic options for giving document feedback remotely while fostering more personal dialogue and interaction between writers and reviewers. Critique^It has focused on "keeping it simple" concerning layout, design, compatibility, and program capabilities. This tool is marketed to nearly anyone interested in collaborative document editing and feedback exchange, including educators, students, writers, and professionals. Educators, in particular writing instructors, comprise a major sector of the target audience for Critique^It; in fact, our group learned about Critique^It in the vendors area at the 2012 Computers and Writing conference. With writing instructors in mind, Critique^It has striven to design a technology that supports social constructivist and process-oriented writing pedagogy by structuring the program in a way that meets the drafting and peer editing workflow needs of composition students and instructors.
Critique^It also considers the institution as a larger audience (consumer) for the product. The ability to implement Critique^It within an institution’s LMS makes the product attractive and adds a competitive edge over other similar tools. Designed as an LMS amplifier, Critique^It can be embedded into an LMS like Blackboard or Moodle and can be accessed by a single sign-on. This is done by syncing the program to the school’s database. When piloting the program for a new school, however, everything is hosted on the Cloud, which is ADA and FERPA compliant. Individuals or institutions interested in trying Critique^It can request a free trial account at Critique^It.com.
How It Works
Critique^It provides a streamlined platform that enables students, “critiquers,” and instructors to upload text documents (.doc, .rtf, .odt, etc.), images (in PDF format), and slideshow presentations (e.g., PowerPoint). Critiquers join a group(s), upload their files, and then share their files with the group. Users can view all documents uploaded to the group by other group members within the program itself. A “workpile” option allows for prioritizing tasks. When submitting a document to a group for review, individuals can attach a comment to the document that is addressed to the critiquers; this feature might be used for expressing a specific concern the writer desires critiquers in the group to review. Additionally, once a user has entered a group page from her dashboard, she can communicate with all of the group participants via a message board visible to all other group members.
The Workpile facilitates time management by visually organizing tasks.
Critiquers access documents uploaded for review by entering a group page and clicking on a document to open it. To initiate the process of commenting, critiquers must select the text on which they wish to comment. Doing so opens a small proofreading dashboard that presents critiquers with several critiquing options: they can insert text-based, audio, or video comments, or they can insert preset proofreading marks or phrases. Critique^It automatically saves comments, compiling them at the end of the document in paragraph order, and denotes which paragraphs have comments and how many by inserting a small, numbered tab on the left-hand side of the document.
Once a critiquer has finished reviewing a document, she need only close the document, and the program will alert the document owner of the newly received critique by marking the document with the Critique^It symbol, [^]. The administrator (instructor) and document owner (individual students) are the only ones able to view feedback left by other critiquers. Document owners have the ability to download text-based comments to a PDF. Should a user want to solicit additional feedback on a revised document, she can upload a new “version” of that document, enabling critiquers in the group to distinguish between the original document and subsequent drafts presumably reflecting revisions. Users may also comment on their own documents by entering the edit mode instead of the view mode.
Situating Critique^It Pedagogically
An argument for adopting Critique^It as a peer review tool can be extrapolated from the scholarship on social constructivist pedagogy and process-oriented writing pedagogy; these pedagogical theories have long asserted a connection between collaboration and increased learning, as well as the benefits of improved writing and critical thinking and reading resulting from peer review in writing instruction. Although not close to exhaustive, the following literature review reflects some of the major premises having emerged from this scholarship.
Many theorists underscore the importance of community in a writer’s development. Randy Garrison and Norman Vaughan argue for a community of inquiry model of learning, which encourages “an express focus on opportunities for learners to construct meaning and confirm understanding through discourse” (8) and that “recognizes the social nature of education and the role that interaction, collaboration, and discourse play in constructing knowledge” (9). Kenneth Bruffee underscores the importance and potential of collaborative learning and peer review in the writing classroom and implores instructors to create opportunities for students to converse about what they are reading and writing (642), asserting that “What students do when working collaboratively on their writing is ... talk about the subject and about the assignment. They talk through the writer's understanding of the subject” (645). Chris Anson reminds us that “the teaching of writing, unlike some other disciplines, is founded on the assumption that students learn well by reading and writing with each other, responding to each other’s drafts, negotiating revisions, discussing ideas, sharing perspectives, and finding some level of trust as collaborators in the mutual development” (269). More specifically, in a study of the benefits of peer review for the reviewer’s writing, Kristi Lundstrom and Wendy Baker suggest that the reviewer’s improvement in specific areas of writing were greater than those who only learned to incorporate peer feedback. This finding supports previous research that claims that the self-evaluation skills developed as a reviewer “may be the most beneficial aspect of peer review” (38).
Scholars also stress the usefulness of electronic peer review methods in distance learning courses. Scott Warnock points out that “peer review as a teaching strategy is so entrenched in composition that it might almost serve as an emblematic practice of composition, and as with other practices in the OWcourse [online writing course], the transition to a completely written peer review environment makes this common practice perhaps even more important online than in onsite instruction” (108). Tim Molseed argues for the value and effectiveness of peer review in online graduate courses, noting the potential for “a richer learning environment” (254); he further elaborates on how peer review activities can be foundational in promoting “critical thinking skills in consort with the personalizing effects of a successful learning community” (265). Finally, in a study that focuses on the effects of electronic feedback versus traditional methods, Jun Liu and Randall W. Sadler found that students were commenting more frequently in electronic peer reviews and that those comments had a higher percentage of revision-based feedback. However, they did find that the revisions made based on comments were higher in synchronous face-to-face interactions, which, they suggest, may be due to the ability to clarify ideas through dialogue with peers.
When placed in the context of wide scholarly support for collaborative learning and peer review practices in writing instruction, Critique^It shows potential as a tool for writing instructors and their students, whether in a face-to-face setting or online. Critique^It’s intermodal platform for peer review effectively places students in dialogue with one another about their writing, simplifies the exchange of documents, and streamlines the process of reviewing and working with writers’ histories of invention, drafting, and revision for both the students and the instructor. By attending to the tedium of peer review, Critique^It frees up students and instructors to focus on what is important to this practice - initiating a constructive and critical discussion about student writing, which, in turn, ideally assists students with improving their writing and critical reading and thinking skills.
Affordances of Critique^It for Distance Learning and English Studies Courses
Critique^It is a useful tool for English Studies instructors who employ peer response to improve students’ writing, rhetorical awareness, and critical reading skills. Because peer review is important and commonplace in many writing classrooms, various software applications and digital approaches have been developed to support this pedagogical practice in a digital environment and to target the needs of this niche educators market. As a peer review tool, Critique^It could be easily adapted to a distance, blended, or traditional face-to-face learning environment. It is especially conducive to the writing classroom because it enables students to organize multiple versions of one document, prioritize their workflow (or “workpile”), organize and easily view their process, and communicate via a message board easily visible from their group page.
Critique^It could be especially beneficial and useful in the distance learning environment because it facilitates a more personal, collaborative experience by allowing students to comment asynchronously in ways similar to a face-to-face setting. If an instructor seeks to enhance and supplement text-based online instruction and communication and to augment a sense of connection and community amongst learners, then Critique^It’s audio and video tools for commenting can support this endeavor. Although synchronous video or audio streaming is outside the scope of Critique^It as a peer review application, the use of the program’s asynchronous audio and video comments has the potential to help transform an otherwise text-based online instructional environment to a more dynamic and personal learning space.
As such, the ability to insert audio and video comments, in addition to written comments, sets Critique^It apart from other programs like MyCompLab. Research indicates that students favor audio/visual feedback to written feedback, particularly for higher order concerns; however, they still prefer to use written feedback when seeking out and resolving lower order, sentence-level concerns (Silva 1). The fact that Critique^It offers all three forms of feedback enables reviewers to provide a variety of responses that will help process both lower and higher order concerns.
Both Audio and Video feedback can be easily inserted on the document under review.
Because the audio/video forms of feedback are embedded in the program -- in other words, students do not have to turn to other programs outside of the system, like Jing -- Critique^It limits potential distraction. In addition, research indicates that what students care about most in an online environment is interaction and time management. As established earlier, Critique^It works well in asynchronous communication, providing a favorable level of flexibility, and the inclusion of video and audio will promote a feeling of connectedness among groups as they work together (Reisslein, Seeling, and Reisslein 26). In fact, the intermodality of this program, or the combined use of video, audio, and written feedback, would promote the writing process and facilitate collaboration among participants (Ciekanski and Chanier 175, 178).
Reviewers can insert stamp comments in the form of common praise or criticism, appearing as hand-written notes on the document.
In a given peer review session, a student can view 1) the comments she gives to another student and 2) the comments she receives on her own work. Additionally, students can add an overall comment to their documents upon submission and anytime on different versions of the same project. Students’ names are attached to the critiques they submit; however, anonymity (if preferred) could potentially be achieved through modified usernames in this space. Critiquers and document owners can easily toggle between versions to compare changes made; for example, suppose a group member commented that Student A’s first draft of her thesis statement was unclear. Student A could revise her thesis statement and upload the revised version for additional feedback from the critiquers in her group. The critiquers could easily toggle back and forth between the versions, noting the changes Student A implemented in her thesis statement. Potentially, a robust dialogue between students could emerge as a result of the easy-to-use versions feature. Also, students need not worry about saving comments or sending documents back to the original owners after finishing a review because the program addresses these tasks, thus automating two important steps.
In addition to the affordances of Critique^It for peer reviewers, the program provides several benefits to instructors reviewing student work and peer response. Critique^It positions the instructor as both a Critiquer in the peer editing space, as well as an administrator who can create courses and groups and can add/invite people to a group. As the administrator of a course or group, the instructor may review all of the feedback critiquers give to one another, which is useful in helping to monitor the progress of a particular peer editing assignment. Because the program also allows for a more fluid presentation of all the work that goes into developing a written “product,” instructors can view the process of each writer rather than simply emphasizing the writer’s final product. Instructors see students’ process, in part through a detailed statistics page that tracks participation; Critique^It compiles the activity of critiquers into easily accessible data that provides information on levels of participation both in submitting and critiquing. Such features enable instructors to offer help to students during the important stages of prewriting/invention and revision.
Instructors can monitor student participation and use this data for a variety of purposes.
Comparisons
Critique^It is an impressive competitor against a number of peer review software programs on the market. Below, we provide a brief comparison of several similar programs. This table is not exhaustive, as there are other programs that offer similar features; we chose these programs due to our familiarity with them, but this list also represents some of the more popular peer editing programs.
| Critique^It | MyCompLab | GoogleDocs | VoiceThread | |
| Video Comment | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Audio Comment | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Text Comment | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Stamp Comment | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Clear Layout* | Yes | No | No | No |
| Accepts various file types | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Archiving/Portfolio Options | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Meets ADA/FERPA Standards | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Automatic Cloud Saving | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Batch Release | Yes | No | No | No |
| Statistics/Tracking | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Free/Open Source | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Note: Some features may be incorporated into a given program by using other software.
*Subjective and varies according to individual needs/background knowledge
Because this is a review of Critique^It, the features of the above table are centered on those Critique^It has to offer. A table centered on any other program may find that Critique^It falls short in a number of areas; the above features, however, are indicative of the kind of tools teachers and students might appreciate. As a result, we find Critique^It to be one of the more dynamic peer review software programs on the market. The main drawback is lack of a free option for more than 30 days.
MyCompLab is, perhaps, the closest competition to Critique^It, as it has many similar features. It has had an insert comment/stamp comment feature for some time, and they recently added audio commenting. It also provides teachers with useful tools like statistics, and it helps instructors maintain student privacy; like Critique^It, however, it comes at a price for students. The main drawback is that the layout and the process of setting up an account is disorganized and confusing.
“Critiques” of Critique^It
Critique^It clearly has much to offer; however, as is the case with most technologies, there are a few minor glitches and drawbacks that instructors should consider. The following list delineates several issues we encountered or noticed when using Critique^It:
- While different document formats can be uploaded to Critique^It, we discovered that different formats may limit the reviewer’s ability to insert comments. In one document we uploaded, a section of the text was inaccessible to highlighting and commenting. However, we circumvented this issue by using the audio comment feature.
- The program does not include a proofreading "dictionary" or legend for students who are not aware of proofreading conventions or, for example, what the word “awkward” implies.
- The program does not allow for uploading audio or video versions for review (though you can upload them as shared resources for the group), which limits the critiques to text-based or image-based static documents.
- Despite claims that some colleges have moved entirely to Critique^It, some important elements of making it an LMS, such as the ability to host grades, manage in depth discussions, or accept assignments that are not text based, are missing, so it would not be encouraged by this group.
- Users can download text critiques, but they cannot save audio/video feedback to personal computers.
- Besides use of an embedded message board, there does not seem to be a robust way for critiquers to dialogue or respond to a critique on their document.
- There is currently no customization of the inline proofreading comments/tools (however, the company anticipates including this feature in the next release).
- Critique^It’s pricing is geared toward institutional subscriptions; currently, a semester-long pilot program runs between $5,000 and $10,000. However, the company plans to offer $9.99/month individual pricing Fall 2012, which means students will have to pay a subscription fee as well.
Conclusion
Critique^It constitutes an ideal tool for peer review, which is a staple activity for the writing classroom whether face-to-face or at a distance. The modes of response (i.e., audio, video, alphabetic) make Critique^It an excellent choice for peer editing, but the ease of use and low learning curve are competitive factors for adopting this software. Critique^It has created a space where all the different response modes are cleanly integrated, making it easy to both give feedback as well as review the feedback one receives.
As a relatively new online software program, we were unable to locate any scholarly support for (or against) or discussion about Critique^It; however, a few technology-related websites have positively reviewed the product. PRWeb reviews Critique^It as a program that “resolves painstaking document collaboration” and “enables in-depth communication and collaboration without making content vulnerable to unwanted changes.” CayPen Magazine, a small, online magazine geared toward entrepreneurs, small businesses, and advertisers, lauds Critique^It as a “solution [with] significant application to any given market—from knowledge management, to contracts, art, or architecture, every industry creates content that needs constant feedback.”
Ultimately, we recommend this program for use in any classroom that includes an online, peer review component, whether it’s a face-to-face, blended, or online course. This user-friendly program enables instructors and students to collaborate effectively by employing various modalities throughout the writing process. Despite the expense of the program and the myriad ways to accomplish this level of intermodality using free software (like Jing) and an existing CMS/LMS, we believe that what the instructor gains in affordability, she loses in simplicity. Critique^It streamlines this intermodality, so the price may or may not be worth it depending on the user.
Critique^It! Video Review:
Critique^It! Review Video
Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. “Distant Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology.”
College English 61.3 (1999): 261-280. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2012.
Bruffee, Kenneth A. "Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation Of Mankind.’" College
English 46.7 (1984): 635-53. ERIC. Web. 8 June 2012.
Ciekanski, Maud, and Thierry Chanier. "Developing Online Multimodal Verbal
Communication to Enhance the Writing Process in an Audio-Graphic
Conferencing Environment." Recall 20.2 (2008): 162-182. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 May 2012.
“Critique^It, Inc. Eliminates Barriers to Document Mark-Up and Review with Launch of
Rich-Media Application.” PRWeb: Online Visibility with Vocus. Vocus, Inc., 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 8 June 2012. http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebCritique^Itlaunch2010/collaborationfeedback/prweb4716804.htm
Garrison, D. Randy, and Norman D. Vaughan. Blended Learning in Higher Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.
Liu, Jun, and Randall W. Sadler. “The Effect and Affect of Peer Review in
Electronic Versus Traditional Modes on L2 Writing.” Journal of English for
Academic Purposes 2 (2003): 193-227. Science Direct. Web. 7 June 2012.
Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. "To Give Is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of
Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing." Journal Of Second Language Writing 18.1 (2009): 30-43. ERIC. Web. 7 June 2012.
Molseed, Tim. "An Analysis of Peer Review Response Types in Threaded Discussions of an
Online Graduate Class." American Journal Of Distance Education 25.4 (2011): 254-267. ERIC. Web. 8 June 2012.
Reisslein, Jana, Patrick Seeling, and Martin Reisslein. "Video in Distance Education: ITFS
Vs. Web-Streaming: Evaluation of Student Attitudes." Internet & Higher
Education 8.1 (2005): 25-44. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 June 2012.
Silva, Mary Lourdes. "Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for
Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process."
Computers & Composition 29.1 (2012): 1-22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30
May 2012.
“Start Up & Notice: Finally an Application that Works Like You Do!” Caypen Magazine. Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Illinois: NCTE, 2009. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment