Peer Feedback
First and foremost, be kind, considerate AND critical!
Format
All students are expected to provide feedback on three fellow students's draft document analysis. Three names will be assigned to you by the professor in this spreadsheet. Also look there if you want to know who will be giving feedback on your Critical Analysis paper. People will not be assessing (i.e. grading) your work, only providing constructive feedback. Normally academic peer review is private or "double-blind" – meaning that neither reviewer nor author are known by each other.
The goal of this assignment is to learn how other people read your writing (not just your professor) and to learn the strengths and weaknesses of how you write. Since we (and you) would likely prefer to receive helpful feedback, your own comments on other people’s writing need to be polite, helpful and collegial.[1] While the “draft copy” of the document analysis is expected to be a polished finished draft, the second version will need to be changed and improved (ideally involving changes to reasoning and argumentation, adding secondary source research – not just style and content). Since everyone will need to figure out how to change their initial finished draft, try to be as helpful as possible to others (i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you…).
Your academic criticism of your peers should:
Use hypothes.is to make comments directly to specific passages. It also allows people to discuss ideas back and forth via the "reply" function.
Indicate what you think the paper did well. What was his/her/their most interesting idea? Was there something about their writing style that you would like to emulate in the future. The goal in making these comments is not to say, “X was good” but to say “X was good for reason Y”. Be very explicit so that the author can learn from your comments when revising their draft.
List obvious problems: typos, misspellings, poor syntax. Note sentences you find ambiguous (i.e. if you weren’t sure what something meant and you’re pretty sure the writing is unclear, let the author know). Does the author cite sources properly? Suggest corrections.
Indicate more subtle problems. If a text has an vague or unclear thesis or a thesis which is not fully argued, communicate to the author what you think they were doing (e.g. "your thesis sentence argues X but your analysis seems to argue Y, am I missing something?”). If you feel more evidence is needed to convince you, let the author know. If you think the author includes evidence which is not pertinent (and should be eliminated), let them know.
Suggest ways to improve. If you know the artifact under analysis, is there additional information which the author could include? Can you think of more examples to support the argument? Are there other resources to help understand it? Is there an alternate way to interpret the material presented? Is there a better way to organize the information that springs to mind? This kind of comment is some of the hardest to make but also the most helpful for re-editing the commentary.
Do not repeat criticisms made by other students (there is thus an advantage to being the first to contribute feedback), unless you are using the same problem to make a different point.
You can also make general comments and criticisms in the "Comment" section at the bottom of the cuportfolio page. use Hypothes.is (which is the better vehicle for detailed commentary) or to engage in debate with other students/ the author.
Etiquette:
Use formal language, and treat your feedback as a piece of academic writing. Avoid contractions, slang, profanity and other objectionable speech.
Be nice. Don’t be mean. Follow the “Golden rule”.
Provide evidence for your comments. Back up what you say – since your comments are a form of argument, which needs to have a logic and proof.
You can comment on more than your three assigned if you choose. Bonus marks apply - but let me know if you do so I can keep track.
[1] Commentators will be penalized for making rude and mean-spirited comments. Criticisms which have support (i.e. you marshall evidence from the text) even if highly critical do not fall into this category. I mean that no personal ad hominem attacks have a place in academic conversation.
Last updated