Peer Editing task

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Use of Comment function

The student made inadequate use of the Comment function of the Review tab of Word.

The student underutilized the Comment function of Review tab of Word.

The student Peer-Editor appropriately used the Comment function to provide critiques and feedback.

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

Proficient

5 points

Use of the Track Changes feature

The student made inadequate use of the Track Changes function of the Review tab of Word.

The student underutilized the Track Changes function of Review tab of Word.

The student Peer-Editor appropriately used both the Track Changes function to provide corrections to grammar, spelling and general paper mechanics.

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Use of peer-editor rubric

The rubric was either missing or not utilized adequately to assess the paper.

The rubric was attached but not fully utilized to provide a grade.

The appropriate Peer-Editor rubric was attached and used to assess the submitted paper.

Criteria

Novice

0-15 points

Competent

16-18 points

Proficient

19-20 points

Corrections of paper mechanics, grammar, and spelling

Much greater editorial effort is needed to find significant errors in the mechanics, grammar, and spelling. The corrections offered will not adequately improve the paper much toward the profession standard.

Many of the mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper were identified and corrected to provide the author of the paper opportunities for improvement in writing skills.

A thorough edit of the paper found and corrected the majority of mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper. In situations where recurring errors of the same type are made it is appropriate to fix the first few and provide a comment stating the presence of similar errors throughout the paper to alert the peer of the need for continuing revisions. The quality of the edits are sufficient to improve the overall professionalism of the peer's paper.

Criteria

Novice

0-7 points

Competent

8-9 points

Proficient

10 points

Insightful comments/feedback

The provided helpful by the Peer-Editor could be improved. The comments provided could be more constructive in nature and lack the insight needed to improve the writing skills or the peer.

The Peer-Editor provided feedback to his/her peer when appropriate. The comments provided generally constructive insights to promote a more professional writing style.

The Peer-Editor provided helpful positive and negative feedback to his/her peer when appropriate. The comments provided consistently constructive insights to promote a more professional writing style.

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Final Grade assessment

A final point score (grade) was not assigned to the paper or the comments and corrections provided were not consistent with the assigned grade or the instructor's assessment of the paper.

The final point score (grade) assigned to the paper needed better supporting evidence in the form of comments and corrections, or the score varied by more than a few points from the instructor's assessment of the paper.

The final point score (grade) assigned to the paper was consistent with the comments and corrections provided and more or less matched the instructor's assessment of the paper.