Peer Review – Project #3.pdf
Learning outcome #4 is for students to be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process. The first peer review I completed focused solely on offering advice on sentence-level things, like punctuation or grammar. That’s not what a peer review should prioritize. That would be what happens when proofreading the project before submitting it. The peer reviews require deeper reading, and I did not know how to do that before. With each peer review, I got better at offering advice on what might need work in my peers’ essays. The development of my peer review skills grew throughout the semester. In the most recent peer review, I provided more advice that prioritized bigger things. For example, it wasn’t easy to find where the writer’s thesis was and understand what it was. I found the essay hard to understand and too cluttered, so I provided feedback to let them know that they should work on changing some things to fix them. They might have been confused about the instructions of the essay and added more than they needed to, which caused it to feel like they didn’t hit the goal of what the essay was asking for. I asked, “where is your thesis?” and suggested adding more introductory sentences before jumping right into introducing the author of the article. I also advised that they should include the students’ essays in the introduction paragraph as well as the articles that were used to provide the reader with more context regarding what is to come in their essay. All of this proves that I have improved upon and completed learning outcome #4.
