Peer review #3

I have never had a class like this that basically forces students to citicize our peers (as scholars of course). I have come to look at this process in a completely new way by this third review. I had some original self- conscious reservations concerning privacy and public criticism. I felt and still feel prepared to accept criticism but have a harder time giving it out. Everyone has a different style and skill level, its hard as a fellow student not to compare anothers writing to your own. It is also difficult to be completely direct and specific, as no one wants to offend, equal treatment for all and such. At times I found spelling or grammar errors that I didn’t point out. I didn’t point them out for two reasons- one, I had other criticisms and didn’t want to be overly nitpicky. Two, I figured if they edited thoroughly they would find these errors on their own (and it was their responsibility to do so).

However. Prior to all of this communal criticism (like through the last three years of college) I was wrapped up very tightly in my own cocoon and wouldn’t have dreamed of letting another student or anyone besides my professor read, much less criticize my work. I was really limited in the sense that I thought all I had to work with was what I could think of. I didn’t consider a larger or historical context about how ideas are shaped and how everyone builds on each other, and how this enhances skills and widens perspective. 

Peer review #1

Truly this is the first peer review exercise I have been involved in in college, I was a little shy about it at first but I lost my self-consciousness and became genuinely interested in the thoughts and ideas of others and how they in turn responded to my work, the parallels and differences in opinion, etc. I wanted to be direct but not overly critical and try to focus on strong ideas. Actually now I believe peer review to be an invaluable tool, I got a lot of great feedback before turning in a final version for a permanent grade. I would look forward to another peer review experience.

I don’t feel shy any more. I read writing that is better and also writing that is not so practiced as mine. I never felt any superiority when I offered good advice or inferiority when I received good advice or criticism. We should all want each other to succeed.

Peer review #2

This review provided a more insightful and honest look at one anothers work than the first go around, though honestly I found it very hard to quantify their papers out of five stars… after review I began trying to equate stars to something, like abcde, or then I thought of percentages, and was concerned maybe I had been too critical at times. I also wasn’t sure exactly how much I should review and if it was okay to suggest things I thought they could develop that they hadn’t already touched on, though that really applies to any peer process I suppose.

Tracey and I had the same feelings about the star system… we both thoroughly disliked it. She compared it to kicking a puppy and I felt exactly the same way… everyone has a different style and natural skill level and I didn’t feel prepared to judge others in that way.

At first I thought I might be doing wrong when I suggested new ideas in a peer review. I thought (individualist mindset heh heh heh) that each person could only use what they came up with in their own mind. I feel differently after having done a few reviews, and after peers have had excellent suggestions that never occurred to me. I now feel that building on one another’s ideas is a positive thing and is really how anyone accomplishes anything. Generally students dislike collaborating, all want to be responsible for their own work. I’m finding that as we get further into our education, most of us are invested and have a lot of thoughtful and helpful insight to offer. In the reviews I tried to just briefly suggest these new ideas, leaving plenty of room for the author to expand if they chose.

Some things Laura said about the star system I could relate to-

First, it helped define the specific areas I was responsible for when reading my peers’ papers. I didn’t feel like I was searching for recommendations to make just for the sake of trying to be helpful.

Agreed. It was helpful to have some guidelines when reviewing, this made the reviews comprehensive and effective.

Second, receiving a star rating didn’t leave much room for interpretation. Your score was right there in black and white. Receiving a rating of 2 stars I KNOW I have some serious work to do.

After I read her blog I formed my final opinion on the star system. I agree with her- a somewhat concrete indicator of the strength of an aspect of writing really helps drive the point home. However, this must be accompanied by a thorough explanation of this rating, or else how does one determine if it is qualified or relevant criticism and what they need to improve?

Peer review is not for the sensitive.

Advertisement