Peer Review
Peer review is part of the process of soliciting and considering feedback you receive on your writing.
It is not to
criticize but rather to
critique. There is a big difference. We are not attacking you;
instead we are offering suggestions for you to think about as you work on your project.
Writing takes time. Few people (if any) can do a job once and be done. When you receive feedback, remember:
Some feedback will be good. Some will be bad. It is your job to sift through the feedback and figure
out what works for you.
As a reader, your responsibility is huge. If you hand back a piece of writing and say "That's good," you are doing
your peer a disservice. The writing may be good. But not giving substantial feedback is a disservice and of
no help at all.
Our objectives for peer review are as follows
Content - How does the project's content fulfill the assignment? Does it? Where? Why? How? If it
doesn't, what do you want to see added?
Is this writing interesting to read? Why or why not? What do you suggest to make it interesting? For example:
1. Is there an introduction? Why or why not? What purpose does it serve? Williams' intro explains why
he felt it necessary to write a Keywords of academic language. Other than the fact
that this is a class assignment, what or who does your project serve?
2. How are the entries constructed? How do they explain or question larger issues? Are they
just "book reports" of a term? Or are they something more meaningful? Why did the writer
choose these words? Does the writer use any of Williams' ideas as well (like we did in class together)?
3. What kinds of material(s) did the writer draw upon in order to construct each keyword?
Remember, we examined how Williams wrote his keywords, and we've discussed a number of sources
you can use for finding information. If the writer has not used many or any sources, you need
to point this problem out and offer solid suggestions.
Organization - Are the parts organized in a manner that makes you understand and follow
the writer? Suggest alternative organization.
Hypertext - How does the writer use hypertext? Is there a menu? Are entries interlinked? What about
images? Any?
Grammar - Ah, Grammar. Is it important? It is. Why? Your credibility as a writer. Why should we
believe what you have to say if you can't spell words right, if you have modifications which don't
make sense, subject verb errors, run ons, fragments, etc.?
Most people make grammar mistakes when they write something once and don't re-read their work or get proofreading feedback. You know the difference b/w its and
it's, for instance. But you often need someone else to read your work and point out what you
are unable to see because you wrote it.
This is not about nit-picking. This is about making yourself a credible source of information and ideas.
Ideas - Did you learn something? What is the point of writing if you are not going
to show us something we hadn't thought about before? What do you suggest this writer do in order to foreground
the ideas? We don't want book reports, and we don't want non-contextual entries.
Why write this (other than it's an assignment)?
What you do:
Open an email. Address it to the listserv and the person you are reviewing.
Address all of the issues listed above. Read first for the content/organization/idea issues, then read for grammar. You can't
do both at once successfully.
Open one or more of the search resources on the class resource page.
When you think about the content of the project you are reading,
do some research for this person. Find those items which fit
what the writer is talking about, compliment, or better inform the focus of any of the entries
you feel are lacking in substance.
Suggest
what you find for the writer to consider while doing revisions.
When you finish your peer review, email it.
If you get through one person's work, great. DON'T RUSH.
Talk out issues. Converse with one another. We don't need to work in silence (and we shouldn't).