I find peer review effective in that I can talk to the person reviewing my paper during the review, and get instant feedback. This helps me get a quick understanding of my mistakes. I think peer review also has flaws since we all are on a relative writing skill level. This could be fixed if the teacher reviewed a second rough daft after the peer review. Two rough drafts will probably help instead of having us do rewrites. It is basically the same thing but the grade isn't given out till the final.
The only the strength I have as a peer reviewer is that I fully answer the questions on the peer review sheet. My weakness as a peer reviewer is that I don't really look for grammatical mistakes. Unless they are blatantly apparent I will not point it out.
For an ideal peer review process. I think a initial peer review on the rough draft should start it. Then a second rough draft critiqued by the professor. Then the final paper is due.
No comments:
Post a Comment