ICLS 2020 Final Feedback

**The authors critique how non cognitive constructs have not counted as evidence of learning (p. 2). Because of this set up, I needed an argument then, for why the authors chose to continue using constructs such as authorship and audienceship “as contextual factors influencing achievement as measured by other assessments.” The phenomenon of using “other” learning in service of “standardized” learning outcomes was a central point of critique, and I needed help how the authors plan to validate these other forms of learning as “seen as legitimate and important” (the critical approach). It was easier for me to see how the authors lifted up the situated approach, which emphasizes “the development of community practices” as legitimate learning. I didn’t want the work to simply “take advantage” of these approaches “to create learning opportunities” without doing the work of ensuring other literacies are “seen as legitimate and important.” For example, in the powerful zdev vignette, the authors illustrate “literacy interactions, in which students are positioned as authors and as audience [as] the basis for a kind of computer science meaning-making for and with others” (p. 3). However, the research question that follows then co-ops this particular “kind of computer science meaning-making” to serve cognitive assessments in RQ 1. This co-opting is exactly what the authors are arguing against in the rationale section. There needs to be an argument for why the authors continue to normalize which forms of learning “count.”

This study is a step toward that goal, validating If we had simply started with

I still think the Social Learning Analytics section of the literature review is not doing very much work for you. If you wanted the cut something, that could probably go. If you need to speak to that community, can you pare it down to which arguments in specific are important to your work?