In the spirit of NETGL, I determined the best way to generate discussion regarding my proposal was to open a Google Doc for comment. I made this public by posting the link to my document on my blog, and after a few errors and a delay in the post appearing on Feedly, it was finally accessible for fellow course members. My aim, and practice, was to have a working document, whereby new literature and ideas were added to the document on an ongoing basis to hopefully generate discussion and help refine my subject and topic into a more defined task. I have used Google docs previously on other collaborative group assignments and found success with ease of identification and modification of the body of the document with multiple users. It was also easy to add additional comments without changing the body of the text if required. The difficulty for my specific situation was that I did not work in an educational environment, and thus found it difficult to generate specific feedback from outside the course on this particular proposal. I eventually managed to have a secondary English teacher colleague critique my work, and found she provided many insightful comments about the ideas on an ongoing basis. I also received feedback from NETGL course colleagues Charm and Lisa, of which I am very grateful. The difficulties that all three colleagues pointed out were the same elements of the plan I had been struggling with.
I engaged in discussions with my external colleague whilst both of us were in the Google Doc. As we were discussing the best applications of the literature and refining ideas within the document I began to form together the pieces of how this research proposal may take shape. Although clear in my mind from the literature review about how this process could work, transferring those ideas into practice, and a measurable practice, was an area of difficulty for me. Perhaps this is because the nature of heutagogy is ‘self-determined’ and more reflective, and actually hard to measure apart from subjective individual opinions of how criteria were assessed. There would also be a lot of subjective bias of the results. Lisa and Charm also posed thought provoking questions about how to refine the proposed activity. If I were to take this proposal forward into a full research activity, more consideration would need to be given to the measurement of the activities and to see if the proposed activities of the research proposal were measuring and recording what they are purporting to measure and record.