Peer Editing: Elbow Rehabilitation Program
jameohxlzb
PeerEdit-1.docxRunning head: ELBOW REHAB PROGRAM
ELBOW REHAB PROGRAM 5
Peer Editing: Elbow Rehabilitation Program
Your Name Here
Logan University
Peer Editing: Elbow Rehabilitation Program
Peer editing (also referred to as reader response) is “a process in which students read and comment on each other’s work as a way to improve their peers’ (and their own) writing” (Ambrose et al., 2010). Peer editing also gives MS students a chance to hone their skills in providing feedback to others that is timely, direct, practical and useful – something all proficient educators do on a regular basis. To be effective in this process, students will use this peer editing tool to guide their reading and feedback. Peer editors will be graded on their skills (see rubric located in link).
FOLLOW THE STEPS BELOW. (INCLUDE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACKS AND COMMENTS IN THE SECTION AS WELL)
DUE FRIDAY MARCH 6, 2020 (ON TIME PLEASE)
Step 1: Read the elbow rehabilitation program of the student with which you have been paired. (THE PROGRAM IS IN THE OTHER LINK) In order to familiarize yourself with the content, read it from start to finish without marking on the paper in any way or responding to the questions on the Peer Editing Tool.
Step 2: Examine the program a second time. Note areas that are very clear and those areas that are unclear/confusing.
Peer Editing Tool
Instructions for peer editors: Answer each of the following questions. Remember to provide feedback that is accurate, thorough, direct and succinct, and practical and useful. It’s important to tell a peer what s/he is doing well, as well as what s/he could do better. The peer editing assignment space in Canvas is a discussion board-type tool. Respond to your partner by clicking “reply” and let him/her know that you completed your review; then remember to attach a copy of this completed peer editing tool to your reply and invite him/her to join you in further discussion if necessary.
Writer’s Name: _______________
Peer Reviewer’s Name: _______________
Scenario: __________________________
1. Elbow rehabilitation program.
a. Is the program relevant to the injury, gender, age, and sport? Yes or No ?
b. If no, what is not relevant?
c. If yes, are the exercises clearly described?
d. If no, what is unclear or understated?
e. Are the exercises under the best stages of care? Yes or No ?
f. If no, where should they be moved to?
g. Are benchmarks created to know when progression of the exercises and phases is necessary? Yes or No?
h. What needs to be done to improve these items?
Additional feedback/comments:
2. Communication
a. Put yourself in the role of the athlete. Are the exercises easy to understand or seem too complicated? Yes or No?
b. If no, what is missing, unclear or over/understated? Where does the communication break down and/or which exercise(s) and/or phase(s) is/are problematic and why?
Additional feedback/comments:
3. Program planning considerations
a. Did the writer take healing timelines and tissues injured into consideration when creating the program? Yes or No?
· If no, what information is missing?
b. Did the writer:
· explain why s/he chose this/these exercises? Yes or No?
· address why s/he believes the exercises will be useful in addressing the issues identified in the scenario? Yes or No?
i. If yes, did the writer accurately apply the exercises to the scenario? Yes or No?
ii. If yes, what clues in the program tell you that the exercises were applied accurately to the rehab phases?
iii. If no, what direction would you give the writer to strengthen this program?
Overall Summary:
a. What is the best part of the program? Why?
Which area(s) of the case study need the most improvement (e.g., the application of content to the questions in the case study, the organization, sentence structure, word choice, evidence to support claims/rationale)? Be specific so the writer knows where to focus his or her energy.
