Today we conducted a brief after action review (AAR) of our Swarm Reading Peeragogy 3.0 assignment.
After-action review (AAR) is a method of evaluation which is intended to help participants learn from the successes and failures of a given project. An AAR takes place in the form of a short meeting (typically completed in under an hour), in which everyone involved in the activity or event under review is invited to share their critical feedback and offer suggestions for improvement. An AAR is tightly structured around four main questions (though the exact wording may vary depending on the specific use):
- What did you expect to happen?
- What went well?
- What didn’t work?
- What would you change?
While this method was originally developed by the United States military it is now used in a range of different organizations, including the UK’s NHS.
After-Action Review of Swarm Reading Assignment
The AAR suggested that our group were mostly uncritical about the assignment itself, or at least that we had no issues with the task that was set. I personally expected that the work would result in our group developing a broad understanding of the set text – which was more or less the stated intention or the assignment – though I did not seriously reflect on this before I began the reading. Much of the critical feedback focused on issues with using swarm reading as a method of approaching the text, some of the main points being:
- does using this method genuinely lead to an understanding of the whole text?
- what reading materials are particularly suited to – or unsuitable for – swarm reading?
- does this method result in individuals missing out on potentially interesting information – or alternatively, does it actually necessitate more work for each contributor as they are compelled to follow up on the research of their peers?
Suggestions for future changes focused on the specific technologies used in the assignment (Miro whiteboard and Hypothesis web annotator) and how they might be better used:
- The Kanban style of note-taking used on Miro was generally praised as an easy way of making and sharing one’s notes with the group
- I personally found the use of both Miro and Hypothesis for the same assignment a little awkward, though I do enjoy aspects of each; it is possible that a solution could be found (or designed) that combines the best of both platforms
- I wondered whether a different approach to note taking might be useful: for example, collaborative lists of keywords, references, and further questions that could be added to and addressed by the group as a whole (rather than dividing the notes into individual chapters and contributors)
- It was generally agreed that some kind of goal, or an idea of what the group are seeking to find out from the text, would be useful as a way of organizing the work
Overall the AAR was informative, and some interesting points were raised regarding our intentions as a group, and how they might best be achieved.
