a. This text surprised me by stating that our job as peer reviewers is not to edit someone else's paper but to inform the writer how we interpreted the paper. In high school it seemed more like just swapping papers and editing as opposed to "really responding" to their work from a reader's standpoint.
b. Yes. Two strategies that stuck out for me were:
(1.) Considering the context of the paper in terms of assignment, interests, the work of the class, and the stage of drafting before you begin reading. This is helpful because it gives you a guideline of what an appropriate paper looks like in terms of circumstance.
(2.) Elaborating on key comments in full statements. This is helpful and practical so that the writer can clearly know what you meant instead of having to ask you about a few words that were unclear.
c. I have done "peer review" in the past, but because it was with my friend, it was not a traumatic experience. It is easier to take criticism from your friends than from strangers.
b. Yes. Two strategies that stuck out for me were:
(1.) Considering the context of the paper in terms of assignment, interests, the work of the class, and the stage of drafting before you begin reading. This is helpful because it gives you a guideline of what an appropriate paper looks like in terms of circumstance.
(2.) Elaborating on key comments in full statements. This is helpful and practical so that the writer can clearly know what you meant instead of having to ask you about a few words that were unclear.
c. I have done "peer review" in the past, but because it was with my friend, it was not a traumatic experience. It is easier to take criticism from your friends than from strangers.
I was also surpised by how peer reviewing should be you telling the writter how you interpreted their paper. I think this helps give them a clear idea of where their writting can cause confusion or where their message was perceved perfectly.
ReplyDelete