Management Communication
fuhguy112
PeerReviewAssignment.docxWeight: 15% of your final grade
During the first half of the semester, you will write four or five short writing assignments as part of the writing workshops (WWs). Each time you write, you will also review a peer’s writing, following the standards for feedback described in class and posted on Blackboard. These peer reviews give you practice in 1) identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of writing, and 2) providing constructive feedback to a peer.
In this assignment, you will demonstrate these skills by reviewing and commenting on a WW sample written by a peer.
Your Task:
On or before October 4, your instructor will upload the Peer Review Assignment Document on BB, which will include the sample message and the rubric for use in your review. You will analyze the sample and provide feedback, in two steps.
1. Critically Analyze the Writing Sample:
Before you write anything, read the sample globally, simply as a message. Consider a few questions: How easy would it be for the intended audience to find this message, and understand what the writer wants them to do or learn? In the context of the guiding case and the prompt, how well does the sample stand up to a PAIBOC analysis? How does it compare to the objectives set out in the prompt (also posted on BB)?
Once you have reviewed the sample globally, review it for the writing principles we have been discussing this term. Decide on the feedback you will provide, by asking yourself, “What two to three pieces of advice would be the most useful to this writer if he/she were to rewrite this message?”
2. Provide Feedback to the Writer:
Rubric-based assessment: The rubric closely resembles the rubrics that will be used to grade your Writing Test and your Reflective Revision. Complete each row in the rubric, assessing the sample in terms of the skill described. In the final row of the rubric, indicate the number of major sentence error types. Consider only these four errors (emphasized in class and part of in-class assessments #1 and #2): comma splices, fragments, run-ons, and lack of parallelism. Count each error type noticed, not each error. For example, if the piece has three comma splices and one fragment, there are only two types of errors.
If you claim that there is a major sentence error in the message, use the comment feature in Word (found on the Review menu) to point out the location of the error in the message and to identify its exact nature (e.g., comma splice). If an error is repeated, you do not need to identify the second (or third) instance. If you are using a word processing package that does not support commenting, devise another system to identify and label errors (colour coding, for example) – be sure to include a “key” that indicates what each colour represents. Do not make any other edits or comments directly on the writing sample. Ignore small errors.
Comments: At the base of the rubric, provide two to three well-developed comments. Together, these comments should be 300 to 400 words in length. Format the comments as follows:
· Introduce your comment section briefly (in one or two sentences), setting the tone and preparing the reader for the comments to follow.
· Provide a descriptive title for each, as shown in the sample assignment.
· Insert a word count at the bottom of the comment section.
Each comment should meet the standards for tone and content established in WWs 1-5. Keep in mind that the writer is your primary audience, and he/she will receive a selection of the comments. To help you establish your tone, you should review the advice in the slides for WW1 and in Module 11, Communicating with Positive Emphasis.
When choosing topics for commenting, look for substantive issues (e.g., quality and clarity of information, awareness of audience, choice of organization pattern, page design...) rather than surface issues (spelling, grammar, or mechanics). As was the case in the writing workshops, feel free to also point out strengths, using them to lower reader resistance when appropriate.
Assessment
Your grade on this assignment will be determined by the quality of your feedback, as outlined below. Your grade will also reflect any deductions earned in WAs 1 - 5. These deductions are assessed when peer reviews are not submitted or do not meet the standards described in class and posted on Blackboard. The rubric is below.
Assessment of Your Peer Review Assignment
|
A |
Rubric assessment is accurate, on most items, including the assessment of grammatical errors. Written feedback is clear, precise, and accurate. Suggested improvements are accurately explained, and supported with examples. The reviewer has not simply focused on surface errors but has also addressed the more complex writing principles discussed in class. Reviewer’s tone is professional, and writing is tight and bright. Major word usage/agreement, punctuation, and sentence structure errors have been accurately identified. |
|
B |
Assessment is generally accurate and readable, but may be weak in one or two of the following ways: 1) Rubric assessment may be inaccurate in one of the three categories (visual design, content, writing); 2) Reviewer may have missed or misidentified one or two major grammatical errors; 3) Tone of written comments might be negative or unprofessional in up to two instances; 4) Written comments might focus on superficial issues or provide less feedback than requested; 5) Written comments might be inaccurate in up to two instances; 6) Advice might not be supported with useful examples (or textbook connections) in up to two instances; 7) Visual design might be weak (not following the instructions on the assignment); 8) The reviewer’s use of language might be inefficient in up to two instances; 9) Other: |
|
C |
Assessment is adequate, but may be weak in two or three of the following ways: 1) Rubric assessment may be inaccurate in more than one category (visual design, content, writing); 2) Reviewer may have missed or misidentified more than two major grammatical errors; 3) Tone of written comments is generally negative or unprofessional; 4) Written comments might focus on superficial issues, or provide less feedback than requested; 5) Written comments might be inaccurate in more than two instances; 6) Advice might not be supported with useful examples (or textbook connections); 7) Visual design might be weak (not following the instructions on the assignment); 8) The reviewer’s use of language might interfere with communication in more than two instances; 9) Other: |
|
D |
Assessment is weak in most of the points identified above |
|
F |
Assessment does not meet assignment standards. |
|
|
Grade increment deducted (e.g., A to A-) for WW peer review not completed or not meeting the standards discussed in class (one increment for each instance) |
Fragment, runons, comma, parallel structure (1 of each to look for in the piece of writing).
