Please think back to our conversation in class about peer/group editing and look over the peer edit document (in blackboard's "Documents" section). Share some thoughts and/or make further suggestions about what our class criteria/guidelines for peer edit/review ought to include.
It took me a long time to get comfortable with the idea of peer reviews. Much like Becker suggests, the process forces people to be vulnerable and potentially exposes their insecurities. Nevertheless, I have come to appreciate the peer review process and how it contributes to stronger writing. We've already touched on many of the qualities that make a good peer reviewer but I'd also like to that a good peer review/er:
ReplyDelete1. Includes rationale-- not for every edit, but for edits that could impact the paper at large.
2. Helps with housekeeping -- edits focused on commas versus semicolons and dashes versus hyphens would be extremely helpful.
3. Provides feedback that is direct and to the point. I can appreciate people wanting to be delicate and kind when delivering feedback but, if the niceties prevent delivering feedback that makes me a stronger writer then the reviewer is doing a grave injustice.
I also really appreciate feedback in hardcopy format and I like to give feedback in hard copy (I'm open to people's preferences but, feedback is best served printed).
I’ve said this multiple times, but I think this has been a really strong text in encouraging the the process of writing and changing the mines of the writers. This text has been both encouraging and challenging in that it asks us to step out of our norms and WRITE! The introduction to the writing process was a clear indication that we should get out of our own way. Even in writing the discipline paper I find myself engaging in some of the “rituals” but feeling less anxious about the feedback from others.
ReplyDeleteI took some time review the general class feedback and I agree with the suggestions made. I am interested in getting 3 key things out of my peer reviewer:
1.Response to clarity and coherence
2.Grammar edits
3.Ideas or thoughts about alternative perspectives.
I would like to receive this feedback written as digital edits get a little confusing sometimes. I think any comments should be be clear and direct. I find it appropriate to ask questions, make comments both constructive and positive.
Elements of a Good Peer Reviewer:
1. Naming when the writer is verbose
2. Name when there are “options” or “suggestions” in the feedback
3. Ask clarifying questions.
4. Share both critical and positive feedback
5. Open to discussion of feedback to provide clarity
I enjoyed beginning the discussion about peer review last week. Classmates at my table provided criteria that I had not considered previously, which in my opinion is a great reason to complete peer review. Becker definitely pointed out many of the reasons why I would/do fear peer review of any sort, but I think going through this process with peers who I have known for two semesters provides a little relief. It seems as if we all would like pretty much the same thing from this process, to come away unscathed and with thoughtful suggestions for our papers.
ReplyDeleteFrom this process, I personally want to learn if my main points make sense and are cohesive and if they are not, what suggestions do my reviewers have to make it better. I also want to know if I left the reader hanging…for example did I cultivate a story that left out the ending. In class, I shied away from using this term, word vomit, but I would like to know if my paper is too wordy, for no reason at all. I find myself rewording sentences in emails to keep them succinct, so I imagine I need help in this department when it comes to a 14 page paper. I’m not great with APA formatting so any suggestions are appreciated. I would appreciate suggestions hand written but understand if the person reviewing my paper prefers digital comments, regardless, I will be reading their comments on a printed version of my paper when I make revisions.
Guidelines for a peer reviewer:
• Be honest with the writer but not too harsh
• Temper negative feedback with suggestions for improvement
• Do not simply read the work and say nice job, provide comments about why you liked certain paragraphs, main points or rationale provided
• Provide comments as to why sentence/paragraph structure does not work but do not rewrite either
I enjoyed our class discussion about the peer review process and what we want it to look like for our discipline paper. I have taken a lot of graduate courses and I wish peer review had been part of the writing process for most of my final papers. While I value the final feedback from a course instructor, I also believe in getting multiple perspectives about my writing style, my ideas, and my approach to the literature reviewed. For our peer review process, I would like to suggest the following process:
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of groups of three (PhD track does not matter to me). This would allow all papers get read two times. As a reviewer, I would like to give my full attention to the papers I edit. To me, two papers seems manageable with the given timeframe. If I had to do more papers, I worry I would not be able to give each my full attention.
I would like to feedback on the paper’s mechanics, stylistic approaches, and delivery of the content. Generally speaking I just want to make sure my paper is grammatically correct and flows well. In other words, did what I write make sense and is it presented in an organized manner?
While written feedback in the paper is helpful (I prefer feedback written directly on the paper, not digital feedback), I would also like a chance in class to have a dialogue with my two reviewers. From this, I think I would gain a better understanding of the written comments and would also get a chance to hear two perspectives on what I wrote in the paper.
Overall, I am looking forward to getting some feedback from my peers on my writing. Thanks for providing the opportunity.
I thought our class discussion on editing was very helpful and there were many ideas I had not thought of. I think that groups of three would be perfect. In this way we can have feedback from more than one person but editing two papers does not seem overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteI would like editors to include comments on whether or not my ideas are well developed. If too wordy, what sentences/ideas are definite keepers. Is my word choice appropriate? Are my transitions between ideas and paragraphs good.
I prefer hard copy feedback with comments written on the paper. I do not mind providing feedback digitally if it is preferred. I think the writing groups will be helpful in improving my paper.
I like the idea of peer reviewing assignments. I always have someone look over my writing and partake in beneficial conversations about the intent of the paper and whether or not my take on the assignment was clear and coherent. I think this is a worthwhile process.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I always struggle with is APA format. I am glad that this was brought up in my group conversation. I think that this is a constant struggle for many and an easy item to lose focus on when you get into the flow of writing. This particular paper is very broad so having someone provide insight and feedback will be beneficial. My worry is the turnaround to get the paper completed. This would be a beneficial process to take part in throughout the semester. Perhaps complete a portion at a time and then get feedback little by little.
I prefer being paired with just one person due to how much time it will take to provide beneficial feedback. This is a crucial time in the semester and I feel as though everything is done at once. I worry that it will be difficult to invest time in providing productive feedback for two people.
Our group had a good discussion about what we would like to get out of our peer review. It was interesting to hear everyone’s preferences for receiving feedback. After reading Becker and the articles from last week, I feel more comfortable with the idea of having my peers read my work, and potentially interested doing a trial run of a writing group.
ReplyDeleteA few elements and/or questions I feel should be essential to peer review are:
1. Be direct but kind.
2. Provide thoughts on flow/section ordering
3. Notes on grammatical and APA errors would be appreciated
4. Is it cogent? What could improve the readability?
5. Would this make sense to someone inside and outside my discipline?
6. What would be the most important change you would make?
7. What is something you really liked/would definitely not change?
8. I would like the opportunity to receive written and conference style feedback.
I am comfortable sharing my written work with peers for the purpose of constructive feedback. The following would be helpful for me:
ReplyDelete1. Making sure that the concept of what I am sharing is easily understood.
2. Have I met the goals of the assignment?
3. APA format/grammar/sentence structure.
4. Be direct.
A group of 3 would be good. This allows for more than one perspective/lens for feedback. It also allows an opportunity for me to share, support, and encourage others in their writing.
I have heard of peer reviewing assignments, and often professors will say that this is a good ida. However, I have never had a class where peer reviewing/editing was implemented. I am both nervous and excited for this opportunity. I can related to the first couple of chapters by Becker where he writes about students feeling nervous and not wanting to share their work. However, with our class discussions on editing, how it can be beneficial, and learning to properly review makes me feel more comfortable with the process. I think that the writing groups will help me grow in the process of writing.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important to give feed back to the writer on:
1) Is there a clear explanation of what ideas are being conveyed?
2) Is proper grammar used?
3) Does the structure of the paper flow?
Additionally, it is important to give critical feedback that will be beneficial to the writer. A simple “This looks good” is not going to help. Be sure to give the feedback in a positive way and not be harsh about it. Always remember that everyone is learning and we are working together.
I'm looking forward to being a part of this peer review process next week. I'm most looking forward to hearing from someone who has not been sitting with my paper as long as I have to check for repetitiveness, claims that aren't backed up, and parts of the paper that don't seem relative to the rest. I have resonated with Kurt's story in class and the story in the Becker book about the process of writing that sometimes results in "extra" stuff making it into the paper; this extra stuff may have been helpful in getting me to my through a thinking process that ends up in some good writing, but isn't necessary for the final draft. I think these type of comments will be especially helpful.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've noticed in the Becker book and in the comments above is that feedback is very dependent on where the author is at the moment that the feedback is being given. For example, if the author has not yet checked for APA, then feedback about this would be unhelpful. I think being responsive to the author (in mode of feedback being paper or online, specific requests for "look fors", and focus on mechanical vs. content) would be one of the most helpful parts. One of the most valuable parts for me as student is going to be the opportunity to participate in this mutual relationship of giving and receiving feedback. I would like to have groups of three so that we can get more experience in this process and so that we can get more than one person's perspective on our work. I'm not sure that time would allow, but it would be interesting to even have the second peer review after the first person's comments have been addressed to continue to fine tune the writing.
I believe strongly in the value of thoughtful peer review. I have benefitted from peer feedback in a number of manifestations: As an artist, my artwork has been challenged and strengthened from in-process art critiques. As an educator, I have improved my teaching practice because of astute, insightful observations by fellow educators. And as a writer, I have learned to express myself with greater clarity and parsimony (shout out to J. McM) thanks to smart readers who gave careful time and attention to my work.
ReplyDeleteThe advantages of engaging in the process of peer review come from both giving and receiving. In viewing artwork, observing teachers, and evaluating the writing of others I have also learned what works, what doesn’t, and how to balance the style of unique, authentic voice, vision, or personality with the structures of expression that effective communication requires.
Making art, teaching others, and composing text are forms of connection and communication with fellow humans. This kind of output is typically developed for the purposes of human interaction, not for the feeding of an ego. If I want to effectively connect through my art/teaching/writing, then being receptive to the feedback of others will improve the chances of this happening. Furthermore, I see participation in the process of peer review as service to and communal engagement with an intellectual community. What’s cooler than that?
Things I look for and try to provide through peer review:
• Feedback that is specific and supported by evidence from the text.
• Feedback that is respectfully delivered.
• Feedback that is focused on improving the clarity and organization of the work.
• Wine.
Nicole Peterson
ReplyDeleteIn reviewing the document, below are the items that I would consider a priority for me. I like that our guidelines are shaping up to be much more specific than the previous years’. I think we already agree that an understanding of a “growth mindset” rives out development but it couldn’t hurt to have this included in our guidelines. Perhaps something like this from Carol Dweck,
“In a growth mindset, people believe that their most basic abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work—brains and talent are just the starting point. This view creates a love of learning and a resilience that is essential for great accomplishment.”
What do you want to get out of the peer review of your paper?
• Counter perspectives
• Disciplinary perspectives
• Check for: repetitiveness
• APA format
• Does it hang together? If not, How not?
• Use Guiding questions (for peer review)
Another peer review activity used the following questions that provided insight that I found particularly helpful when revising:
1. Were any sections difficult to follow because transitions were missing?
2. Is the content of each original document clear (e.g. policy recommendation, research study, opinion)?
3. Did your peer miss any key points in their synthesis (for us, part 1)?
• Explicit Procedures for critique (i.e. timelines, electronic vs. hand-written)
I really think that critiquing in a triad would be a great experience, especially for those who are experiencing peer review for the first time. For the reviewer, this provides the opportunity to get familiar and acquainted with two different writing styles, see two different structures, and also increase exposure to a discipline outside of their own. For the author receiving the feedback, there’s an opportunity to hear two different perspectives and triangulate the ideas with their own. Most valuable in my opinion is feedback as to whether your reader is able to understand and follow your train of thought and your conclusions.
I agree with the peer edit document, for the most part. We definitely need counter perspectives as well as disciplinary perspectives. I, personally, believe that can be accomplished via having peer reviews completed between students within the same track. Since most people do not view even their own disciplines from an identical lens, this may be prove efficient. Students from other tracks will have to spend extra time, which they may not have, researching claims they have no knowledge about. It would be nice to have someone who knows as much or more about my track as I do give both counter and within discipline perspectives at once. Checking APA format is a big one for me. I would like that, but I worry that if I am looking for someone to make sure my paper uses the correct APA format, how is someone supposed to trust me to do the same for them if I was unable to format my own appropriately. A sample APA formatted paper or straightforward APA guidelines would be great to have since I have come across conflicting guidelines on Google.
ReplyDeleteI was not there for discussion of the peer review process last week. However, looking at the document I do have some questions. I wonder what we could offer as counter perspectives for our discipline given that each of us has a slightly different disciplinary approach, or different focuses within the discipline we are working towards mastery of. I also wonder how we could avoid, should we review a paper from a similar disciplinary focus, overwriting their paper in a way that removes their voice and substitutes ours. I found this happened often during the course of my undergraduate and master's experience, and it often created more problems come final draft time than it resolved.
ReplyDeleteWe just touched the surface last week in discussing peer reviews and what we felt was important and needed. One of our group members talked about her experience which I think was helpful because she was able to provide some guidance on what worked and what didn't. I think I have always seen the value in receiving feedback from peers, I like the idea of it being in a more formalized manner but also trust friends and colleagues to take on that role. At least with me peers in class they have more of an understanding of objectives and goals for the writing and can offer substantial feedback.
ReplyDeleteBeyond what we have already discussed, I think it would be important for peer reviews to ask questions. Questions for clarity or if the point is being addressed. Questions about style. Overall, bringing thoughts to the table and helping the writer understand where things may or may not make sense. I know I definitely can get repetitive and would appreciate the feedback to cut out or expand further. I know the feedback that I provide others will also help me to think through my own synthesis and analysis of my paper. I don't mind honest and critical feedback but keeping it thoughtful and respectful. I can only learn if you provide that honest feedback.
As a peer review group, I think we also have to spend time getting to know one another and trusting one another. In some group situations I have also set ground rules which can be helpful to all be on the same page about what we want from one another. I think it will break down some barriers for us all to receive feedback from one another and allow us to grow as students.
After looking at the Peer Review document and the discipline paper assignment, I think that there should be a focus on things like:
ReplyDelete1. Comments on flow of the paper
2. Clear and direct comments and explanations of needed changes
3. Pointing out when claims need more explanation or evidence
4. Pointing our grammatical errors
5. I would also love comments on the tone or style of writing (something that I don't think we get much feedback on, in general)
6. I think it would also be nice (if our reviewer is from a different field) for them to comment on how they understand our discipline through our paper. If the reviewer is from our field, it would be nice to have them comment about how they understand our "Normative Dimensions" in relation to the field.
I am still becoming comfortable with the idea of peer editing but I'm more comfortable than i was before this class started. I would appreciate and benefit from two peer reviewers, one from my track and one from a different track. There is a benefit of having some prior knowledge of reading a discipline paper, for example, about special education. There is a benefit about understanding the history and policy pieces behind the topic that would have peer editing more easier. However, at the same time, I think that if the point and purpose of my paper is understood by someone who is not from my track, then I can say that I have written my paper succinctly.
ReplyDeleteIn order for peer reviewing and editing to be as successful as possible, I think there needs to be a sense of trust that is developed with our classmates. I do think I have it with those in my track but I cannot confidently say that I have that same level of trust with everyone in the class. That does not mean that I will NEVER have that, but I think eventually I could. Maybe participating in some "trust building" exercises would be beneficial prior to the peer reviewing exercise.
Ira Padhye
Delete