Collaboration

Peer Critique #1 Peer Critique #2  Peer Critique #3

PC #1 CS to me PC #2 AS to me PC #3 CP to me

Peer critiques were effective, helping me develop my own writing as well as the work of others. For every person in my group I’ve written three peer critiques, after every critique I became more familiar with their paper and their style of writing, it was interesting to see every individual grow as a writer. I feel my peer critiques were useful for every member in my group because I took my time and effort into reviewing every paper. For the most part, I approached every paper as mentioned in the guidelines or stated in the handout from Professor Block. I struggled with my first peer critique, and I often times found myself running out of ideas to give them. For example, in Peer Critique #1, I notice that I’m repetitive, and I wasn’t as specific as I should have been. In my letter to Dana, I suggest making her paper flow better, but I don’t advise her as to what she can do to fix the issue. I also lack information such as where the problem is. In my letter to Christian, I mention that he needs to make his paragraphs lengthier, but I inadequately give him any ideas of topics he can incorporate. In my letter to Pang, I focused too much on local concerns instead of main ideas and paragraph structure. My first critique wasn’t as effective as I would have liked it to be, however my second one was much stronger.

In my second letter of critique to Pang I made sure to give a detailed explanation of why her main ideas were unclear, I also let her know what paragraphs were weaker than others. I asked her questions that she could answer and add onto her analysis. For Christian, I thought his thesis could be more detailed and I suggested cutting out a specific sentence. Furthermore, I went through every paragraph and suggested moving sentences around to make the paragraphs stronger. Lastly, for Dana, she incorporated a lot of scientific information. I reminded her that ethos is important and that she should go back and make sure nothing was unintentionally plagiarized. In every peer critique I also mentioned the parts they did well in and what parts impressed me. In every workshop discussion I was clear in explaining the parts of the paper that could be strengthened. I always made sure to give a couple examples of how to improve their papers. Furthermore, I always made myself available to answer any questions they might have had after reading my peer critique to them.

I took the constructive criticism that my peers gave me and utilized most of it. It was helpful to have another student read my paper from their perspective. If you look at the CP peer critique written about my paper, my peers agreed that the two stages in my paper were disconnected. Since this was an obvious issue, I took my paper to the Writing Center and asked for help regarding the transition of my two stages. I sat with a mentor and created various transition sentences. After revisions, I’m certain my final course paper reads smoothly.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s