Peer Review Instructions 2 forms

Feedback developed by Estee Beck, PhD General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown author

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Peer Feedback

Research in writing studies show evidence that undergraduate student writers are not familiar with providing adequate peer feedback, and instead rely upon mildly pleasant comments as a way to not offend a fellow student. At the same time, getting feedback is a crucial step in writing. Feedback provides insight from a detached reader, who may provide overall direction for the works-in-progress. Learning how to give feedback requires practice, patience, good reading skills, and sensitivity toward relations. But, students need training with how to give good peer feedback.

How to give not-so-great feedback:

Here’s a sample paragraph from a friend who has asked for some feedback on the scope of the paragraph. He’s concerned that the summary paragraph does not provide enough detail to conclude a section of the paper.

for working within electronic computer Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ different methodologies

benefits apply to classroom based writing practices along with research and scholarship, the ultimate quest provides insight into a knowledge and information exchange economy through and with digital technologies. As people make

-mediated spaces, both fields form around a sense of searching for how people and machines interact with each other. While the

advancements with digital technologies, especially with movement in the multi- million dollar Internet of Things industry, the relationship of not just human-to- machine interaction, but also machine-to-machine interaction will become important for rhetoricians to address. Again, understanding the function of rhetoric in algorithmic processes is just one step in support of positioning a rhetorical code studies as central to rhetorical scholarship.

Comment [BE1]: I have no idea what this means!

Comment [BE2]: Long

Comment [BE3]: Who cares?

Comment [BE4]: This is a horrible paragraph.

The comments in the margins show a few traits: An uncaring critique, ignorance, inadequate explanation, and a final comment that’s not too pleasant to read. What’s missing from the four comments?

Here’s the same paragraph, with some alterations:

Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ diferent methodologies Comment [BE6]: Punctuation Comment [BE5]: Spelling error

for working with electronic computer mediated spaces both fields form a sense of searching for people and machines interact with each other. While the benefits apply to classroom based writing practices along with research and scholarship, the ultimate quest provides insight into a knowledge and information exchange economy through and with digital technologies. As people mke advancements with Comment [BE7]: Spelling error digital technologies, especially with movement in the multi-million dollar Internet of Things industry, the relationship of not just human-to-mahine interaction, but also Comment [BE8]: Spelling error machine-to-machine interaction will become important for rhetoricians to address.

Feedback developed by Estee Beck, PhD General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown author

Again, understanding the function of rhetoric in algorithmic processes is just one step in support of positioning a rhetorical code studies as central to rhetorical scholarship.

Now, this isn’t necessarily “bad” feedback. Instead, it’s a type of feedback called ‘local’ issues (or the details like grammar, punctuation, usage, and mechanics) or editing the paper. The focus is on the small items, but not the overall larger concerns the writer wanted the reader to address.

Commenting and correct grammar, punctuation, usage, and mechanics is not good peer review feedback.

How to give good feedback:

Although computers & writing and digital rhetoric employ different methodologies for working within electronic computer-mediated spaces, both fields form around a sense of searching for how people and machines interact with each other. While the benefits apply to classroom based writing practices along with research and scholarship, the ultimate quest provides insight into a knowledge and information exchange economy through and with digital technologies. As people make advancements with digital technologies, especially with movement in the multi- million dollar Internet of Things industry, the relationship of not just human machine interaction, but also machine-to-machine interaction will become

-to-

important for rhetoricians to address. Again, understanding the function of rhetoric in algorithmic processes is just one step in support of positioning a rhetorical code studies as central to rhetorical scholarship.

Notice three things about the comments in the margin: 1) There are only two comments that address larger issues of the paragraph that the writer needs to focus on in revision; 2) There’s positive language at the start of the first comment showing an interest in maintaining the relationship with the author, but also telling the author he did something well in his writing; and, 3) They are longer comments that ask questions and use “hedge” language like ‘might’ and ‘consider’ to provide the author with the opportunity to consider the feedback without a directive of what to do.

Comment [BE9]: This is a great transitional sentence from the previous paragraph. And, as a curious reader, how do people and machines interact with each other? Would another sentence or two help readers with that answer?

Comment [BE10]: This seems to be the key point in this paragraph. Why do rhetoricians need to address this topic? Might you consider adding a sentence why directly afterward so readers have a rationale? I see this is explained later in the paper, but maybe a hint of the position will help give readers a sign about what is to come.

Feedback developed by Estee Beck, PhD General strategies for peer response attribution to an unknown author

General Strategies for Peer Response

When providing feedback to peers, use of the below template responses and fill in the blank with your comment. You will find after a few times giving this kind of feedback you will become stronger with giving good feedback.

Types of responses writers want to hear:

Summarizing/Saying Back: Here is what I see this saying . . .

Glossing: Here is a word or phrase that condenses this paragraph or section as I understand it . .

Responding: As I read this paragraph, I . . .

Pointing: What seems most important here is . . . What seems to be missing here is . . .

Extending: You could also apply this to . . . What would happen if you . . .

Encouraging: This works well for me because . . .

Suggesting: If I were you, I might add . . . You could move that paragraph . . .

Soliciting: Could you say more about this . . . ?

Connecting: In my experience, this . . . That’s like what x says . . . I saw some research on this . .

Evaluating: This opening is focused and well-developed . . .

Counterarguing: Another way to look at this is . . .

Questioning: Why do you say . . .

Responses writers don’t want to hear:

“I like it.” (nice but useless)

“I hate it.” (insulting and useless)

“It’s ok.” (boring and useless)

“I wouldn’t change a thing.” (boring and useless)

“How could you actually believe this crap?” (insulting, boring, and useless)

“This has nothing to do with your project, but this reminds me of when I . . .” (insulting, boring,

useless, and annoying)